The Gazette 1973

Wickmans committed only one isolated breach of the visiting obligation. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Wickmans' appeal, holding that in its context the meaning of "condition" was ambiguous and interpreting it by looking at the way in which the parties themselves had treated breaches of it before the termination. L. Schuler AG v. Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd.; House of Lords; 6/4/1973. Crime Before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice James and Mr. Justice Nield. Contravention of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, does not normally merit even a suspended prison sentence unless it is accompanied by dishonesty, the Court of Appeal said when barying a sentence on B. J. Haesler, of Parkstone, Dorset, for offences in respect of a motor car. A fine of £ 75 on each of three counts was substituted for a sentence of six months' imprisonment suspended for three years. In dismissing an appeal against conviction the Court held that the omission of the words "ex Channel Islands" fromt he log book amounted to a false trade description. It was also held (applying the principle in Hall v. Wickens Motors {Gloucester) Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 1418) that the delivery of the service book 56 days after the car, during which the purchaser had repeatedly asked for it, was associated with the sale of the car, and that entries in the service book amounted to a false trade description. Regina v. Haesler; C.A.; 23/3/1973. Before Lord Justice Stephenson, Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Kilner Brown. Judgment delivered March 16th. Giving "evaded" its ordinary meaning, there is no reason why ad ebtor cannot dishonestly obtain the advantage of having the payment of his debt evaded by his deception of falsely pretending that his cheque is a good and valid order to pay without his creditor agreeing to cancel or forgive the debt either in whole or in part; all that must be found is that as a result of the deception the creditor has done or has refrained from doing something which enables the debtor to get out of payment, even without the creditor appreciating that that is the effect of what he was doing or not doing. Their Lordships so held when dismissing an appeal by E. B. Fazackerley, 31, of Southport, against his conviction at Liver- pool Crown Court (Judge Davies, QC) on five counts of obtain- ing a pecuniary advantage (evasion of a debt) by deception, contrary to section 16 of the Theft Act, 1968. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years' imprisonment on each count. Section 16 provides: "(1) Aperson who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself .. . any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction . . . be liable to imprisonment . . . (2) The cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where (a) any debt . . . for which he . . . is . . . liable . . . is reduced or in whole or in part evaded or deferred . . . " Regina v. Fazackerley; C.A.; 21/3/1973. Before Lord Justice Roskill, Mr. Justice Talbot and Mr. Justice Boreham. It was not sufficient for a conviction of taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority, contrary to Section 12 (1) of the Theft Act, 1968, that there had been an unauthorised taking of possession or control adverse to the rights of the true owner. Some element of movement of the conveyance, however small, was also essential. The Court of Appeal so held when allowing appeals by Stephen Bogacki, Howard John Tillwach and Robert Charles Cox against conviction at Middlesex Crown Court (Judge Salmon) last July of attempting to take a motor vehicle without authority. The convictions were quashed. Regina v. Bogacki and Others; C.A.; 20/3/1973. Before Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Salmon. Opinions delivered on March 21st. Where an agreement has been made abroad to commit in England a crime under English law and acts in furtherance of that agreement are committed in England, the English Courts have jurisdiction to try the parties to the agreement on a charge of conspiracy. Their Lordships allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the decision of the Court of Appeal([1972] 3 WLR 33; The Times, May 10th) quashing the convictions of the respondents, R. L. Doot, M. A. Fay, J . R. Loving, T.

Shannahan and J. W. Watts, at Winchester Assizes (Mr. Justice Lawson) on Count 1 of an indictment charging them with conspiring to import dangerous drugs (cannabis resin). By other counts, each respondent was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, importing prohibited goods contrary to Section 304 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. Following a ruling by Mr. Justice Lawson that the Court had jurisdiction to try the count of conspiracy, the first four respondents pleaded guilty to that count without prejudice to their contention that the Court had no jurisdiction. Shannahan pleaded not guilty but was convicted. The respondents were sentenced to terms of imprisonment or fines, and were recom- mended for deportation. The Court of Appeal held that the offence of conspiracy was completed when the agreement was made; that in the present case the acts done by the respondents following the agreement were not further agreements but overt acts evidenc- ing the conspiracy and that accordingly the English Courts had no jurisdiction. The Court certified as a point of law of general public importance involved in their decision "Whether an agreement made outside the jurisdiction of the English Courts to import a dangerous drug into England and carried out by importing it into England was a conspiracy which could be tried in Eng- and", and gave leave to the prosecution to appeal. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doot; House of Lords; 23/3/1973. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Bridge. A motorist who listened to fire brigade messages on his car radio out of interest but without authority was guilty of an offence under Section 5 (b) (i) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, even though he intended no mischief. Paul v. Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; 5/3/73. Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis. Judgment delivered April 2nd. Defendants who are charged on separate informations with offences arising out of the same set of facts, the joint action of the defendants causing the offences, must be tried separately in the absence of consent to be tried jointly. Their Lordships so held when allowing appeals by case stated by M. Aldus and W. J. Straw against their convictions by Barnard Castle justices last August of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, contrary to Sec- tion 3 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. They had been each fined £15 with costs and their licences endorsed. Aldus and Another v. Watson; 5/4/1973. Damages Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Stamp and Lord Justice James. The Court of Appeal reduced an award to a man injured in a road accident of £41,252 damages including inter$st to £18,698 after admitting fresh evidence that after the trial of the action, in which the quantum of damages was the only issue, and entry of a notice of appeal in time by the defendant, the injured man, who had become addicted to pain-killing drugs, died on an overdose of drugs. Their Lordships allowed an appeal by the defendant, Mr. J. Sheppard, of Dawley, Shropshire, from Mr. Justice Park, who, at Bristol last June, awarded to Mr. D. A. McCann, of Shirehampton, Bristol, the total of £41,252. Mr. McCann died on October 22nd, and the appeal was brought with his widow and her co-administrator of his estate as respondents. McCann v. Sheppard; C.A.; 16/3/1973. Domicile Before Sir John Pennycuick, the Vice-Chancellor. In order to establish that a person has changed his domicile of origin to a domicile of choice, proof of an intention to remain permanently in the country of choice has to be of an especially high standard. The Vice-Chancellor so held when dismissing an appeal by Mr. L. C. C. Buswell, who has resi- dences in London, Sussex and South Africa, from a decision of the special commissioners that the Crown had discharged the onus of showing that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the United Kingdom for the purpose of assessing his liability to income tax. Mr. Buswell was born in Johannesburg in 1921 and had a domicile of origin in South Africa. In 1928 he came with his parents to England, where he was educated. He remained in this country until 1941, when he was called up and obtained 123