Interfact Limited v Liverpool City Council [2010] EWCH 1604 (Admin) heard with R v Budimir and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1486 - Ss 10 and 12 VRA – articles 7 and 10 ECHR.
1) legislation not notified, as required by EC Directive, renders it unenforceable against individuals.
2) under the principles of national law, convictions may only be set aside if they have given rise to substantial injustice.
3) failure to notify as required by EC Directive does not render legislation a nullity.
4) principles of equivalence and effectiveness - open to D to challenge irregularity in legislation even if not aware of it.
5) enforceability was not an essential element of the concept of “law” in ECHR rights under articles 7 or 10.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R (Smith) v Wakefield Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 752 (Admin) – Ss 9 and 10 VRA.
- conviction of D under legislation then unknown to be technically unenforceable may only be challenged, out of time, if D would suffer substantial injustice. - Interfact Ltd and Pabo Ltd v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 995 (Admin) - Ss 7 and 12 VRA - HRA - article 10 ECHR.
- meaning of "supply". 1) meaning of defined words does not require resort to contractual principles. - the word "supply", in the VRA, has a wide meaning, being "supply in any manner". - supply takes place when goods are delivered. - licensed sex shop ensures customer is face to face with supplier who can assess his age. 2) VRA restrictions imposed on the article 10 right to freedom of expression are justified. 3) the offence is offering to supply, not making the offer, other than in a licensed sex shop. - hence legal supply can only be made to a person physically in the sex shop. 4) P's costs can be far greater than the fine if explained by circumstances of the case.