CHOOSE FROM LICENSING ACT s.146/THEFT ACT s.2 OR DEAD COMPANY BUT LIVE DIRECTORS

As in most occupations there are some days when events are much more interesting than others.  My last sitting was such a day. 

It disturbs me greatly when governments of all hues moan and groan until the night is long and fail to enact obvious corrective measures to  a particular  problem.  The consumption of alcohol by under age teenagers is a major scourge.  Whilst some drinking might be done in secret  at home most alcohol    is purchased from off  license premises ranging from Tesco and similar to the corner shop in any suburban shopping parade.   The simple deterrent to the illegal sale of alcohol in these circumstances would be  for a second offence to allow the offender to be  prohibited from holding a liquor license  for  a longer period than the current maximum of  six months.  The maximum fine is £5,000 for a  s.146 offence.  The fact that in 2013 only 128 offenders were convicted of s.146 alcohol offences under  the Licensing Act 2003 speaks volumes.  Local authorities which  are normally responsible for the policing of the act in these instances  devote their reduced budgets to the bare bones of what is necessary to fulfil their basic functions of roads, refuse collection, education etc.  The cost of children`s broken lives does not appear in any balance sheet.  The first such defendant  to appear in front of us that day  was a first timer  s.146 offender  who had since the offence sold his business.  Indeed he was the first s.146 case I have been involved in for at least three years or longer such is the dearth of prosecutions as borne out by the statistics link above.  With full costs we allowed him 7 days to pay his punishment of close to £2,500. 

Three company directors and their jointly owned company were charged with a series of offences relating to their car sales business.  They were unrepresented.  Their spokesman defendant  told us the company had been dissolved since the date of the offences.  The prosecutor verified this  after a brief adjournment and told the court that in law the charge against the company could not now be sustained but those against the now former directors would still go ahead.  To mere layman there is just a hint of illogicality insofar as a dead company cannot be charged but the former directors can be.

The third unusual matter was having to acquit an admittedly dishonest person because she had been charged with  theft from a shop on a particular day but had demonstrated that at the time of the incident she had not  knowingly been aware  the article in question could not be removed and she had had no intent to take something to which she had no right.  Subsequent evidence demonstrated that a day after the alleged offence she had knowledge that the item was not hers to rightfully have walked  away with.  In other words,  her initial honest mistake in walking out with an item,  under s.2 of the Theft Act could not be proved  as charged even when she realised later it was not hers to take.  If the charge had been written as having alleged the offence to have taken place between eg the original date and a later one when she was arrested a week later with the article we would have found her guilty.  Alternatively a charge involving dishonesty or fraud might have been better suited to the facts. But when the CPS scarcely glances at such details on such a common matter  when considering whether or what to charge what else can be expected?  We applied the law as it is; not as we might wish it to be. That is our duty.