124 / 262
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