R v Pain (Roy); R v Hawkins (Christopher Joseph); R v Jory (Stephen) conjoined appeals
Date
5 December 1985
Legislation
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 ss.1(1)(b), 19(1)
Criminal Law Act 1977 s.1.
Keywords
alteration of indictment; criminal offences; counterfeit goods
Counsel
A Hacking QC and G. Arran for Pain and Hawkins, G Robertson and C Dines for Jory, E. M. Hill Q.C. and R. Rhodes for the Crown
Solicitors:
unknown
Judge:
The Lord Chief Justice, Leonard and Rose JJ.
Court:
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Reported:
(1986) 82 Cr App R 141
Summary:
On February 20, 1985, in the Crown Court at Aylesbury, Jory and Hawkins pleaded guilty to certain offences. On February 26 Roy Pain was convicted by a majority verdict on related offences. On February 27 all three men were sentenced as follows: Pain on counts 1, 2 and 3, conspiracy to contravene the provisions of s(1)(1)(b) Trade Descriptions Act 1968, eighteen months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently; Jory, on counts 1, 2 and 3, similar offences on which Pain was sentenced, eighteen months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, and on count 6, offering to supply goods contrary to s1(1)(b), eighteen months' imprisonment consecutive, making three years' imprisonment; and Hawkins, on count 4, offering to supply goods contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Act, four months' imprisonment suspended for twelve months.
Pain, Jory and Hawkins appealed against conviction and sentence.
The case revolved around an extensive plot to manufacture, bottle and sell bogus Chanel scent and toilet water. The police discovered that plot in September 1983, when they descended upon the premises where a part of the operation was being carried out.
The original indictment charged conspiracies to defraud. On the first count these three appellants, amongst others were charged with conspiring together "to defraud Chanel Limited by the unlawful manufacture, packaging, distribution and sale of scent and eau-de-toilette, purporting to be scent and eau-de- toilette manufactured by the said Chanel Limited." The third count was a similar conspiracy, but in relation to a particular type of aftershave lotion.
Counts 2 and 4 were allegations of conspiracy to obtain property by deception, contrary to s1 Criminal Law Act 1977, the particulars being that these three men and others conspired together, "dishonestly to obtain money from members of the public, with the intention of permanently depriving them thereof, by deception, namely by falsely representing that scent and eau-de-toilette not manufactured by Chanel Limited were manufactured by the said Chanel Limited." The fourth count was a similar allegation in respect of the aftershave lotion, mentioned also in count 3.
All those allegations were made in the shape of charges which, had the charges then been made under the Trade Descriptions Act, would have been well within the time limit imposed by s19(1) of that Act.
The proof of those offences undoubtedly involved proof of facts which would have justified prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and probably under a number of other Acts as well. The Court of Appeal held that to go further and say that they were indeed prosecutions for offences under that Act, as Mr. Hill's suggested, strained the language of section 19(1) beyond breaking point.
Decision:
Accordingly, with considerable reluctance, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that there was no jurisdiction in the Court at Aylesbury to order the amendments which in fact were ordered, in view of the fact that proceedings at Aylesbury were in point of time well outside the limits imposed by section 19(1). The Appeals were thus successful.