Hicks v Grewal

Date

10 October 1984

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 ss1, 23, 24

Keywords

false trade description; counterfeit goods; defences

Counsel

Mr Fowler

Solicitors:

Lawrence Graham, agents for Neil F Jones & Co; Max Engel & Co.

Judge:

Stephen Brown LJ, Croom-Johnson J

Court:

Queens Bench Division (Crown Office List)

Reported:

(1985) 4 Tr L 92

Summary:

Appeal by a trading standards officer from a decision of the Magistrates Court in Birmingham. The Magistrates had 12 summonses alleging offences against the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 all relating to the supply of cassettes which were wrongly alleged to be made by Sony. The Magistrates found the cassettes to be counterfeit and made findings about the chain of supply to the appellant.

On appeal the issue arose whether, on the evidence adduced before the Magistrates, they erred in law in finding that the respondent should be acquitted upon the basis of his unsworn statement that he had purchased the goods in good faith and had been shown invoices from a third person.

The Court concluded that on the case as stated and the facts as found by the justices, it must proceed upon the basis that the justices found that there was a wrongful act or default on the part of this respondent by supplying the counterfeit tapes. The inference must have been either that he must have known that they were counterfeit or that he did not take precautions to ensure that he was dealing with genuine articles. However, what the Magistrates apparently acted upon in coming to their decision was the respondent's unsworn statement that he had bought the tapes in good faith, having been involved in this particular trade for only one year.

Accordingly the Court considered the Magistrates case to raise only one point - whether they were entitled to act upon the respondent's unsworn statement in concluding that there was not a prima facie case to answer.

Decision:

The Court concluded that they did err in law by acting on the unsworn statement, and that, having erred in law, and the respondent not having given evidence, they should convict.