www.consumercrime.co.uk

You are not currently signed in - enter your email address and password into the boxes below, or create a new account.

• Home
• About CCC
• CCC Search Tips
• Keyword list
• Articles
• New Older Cases
• Cases referred to
• Abbreviations
• Legislation Links
• Organisation Links
• Contact us
• Your account

Welcome

Latest Cases

• Fantasia Productions Ltd v Redbridge (LB of) [2026] EWHC 698 (Admin) – S 101 MCA – s 224(3) TCPA – regs 2(1), 4(1) and 6(1)(a) and Schedule 2(1) and Part 1 Schedule 3(1) TCPCAER – Article 6(2) ECHR – HRA.
  - proving a negative - onus of proving exceptions etc. - reverse burden of proof on balance of probabilities. – presumption of innocence – right to fair trial. 1) where offence in statute committed by contravention of regulations, s 101 MCA can apply to qualification contained in regulations but not in statute itself. 2) interference with right to fair trial from reverse burden of proof in s 101 MCA imposed on D charged under s 224(3) TCPA was proportionate.
• Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 – S 3(4) TMA - Point 5 of PART III of Annex VII MAPR – FICR – MCAD.
  - prohibited registration of trade mark. - regulation of dairy terms such as “milk” in marketing of agricultural products. 1) use of term “milk” in respect of oat-based food or drink is prohibited. - prohibition bites where designation used for relevant product; not necessary that used as name of the product. 2) designation of term “milk” in relation to oat-based food or drink only permitted on basis that used to describe a “characteristic quality of the product” such as “milk free” where this is done “clearly”.
• Attorney General v Mallet [2025] JRC 151 (Jersey case) - Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
  - de minimis principle not engaged when drug contains only relatively small quantity of controlled drug. - offence of possessing that controlled drug nonetheless committed.
• Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2025] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – S 19 PACE – s 1 DDA.
  - fact that possession of an item is an offence does not prevent it being taken into possession of officer by way of lawful seizure. - fact that s 1 DDA provides no one may have prohibited dog in their possession, and only specifies seizure as an exception when carried out under DDA power, does not prevent police constable exercising power of seizure under s 19 PACE. - s 1 DDA concerned with defining an offence whereas s 19 PACE concerned with investigating an offence. - clear words would have been required in DDA to expressly exclude powers of seizure under PACE.
• DPP v Jackson [2025] EWHC 2797 (Admin) – S 39A CJA 1988.
  - statutory time limit for prosecution. - exclusionary rule: reference to “after” or “from” indicates starting date excluded from calculation of time limit. - corresponding date rule: when time limit is number of months, period ends on corresponding date in appropriate month.

Latest Articles

• Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths
  Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
• De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law
  Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
• Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond
  Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
• Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference
  Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
• Amending the Defendant’s Name
  Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.

What's popular

• Fantasia Productions Ltd v Redbridge (LB of) [2026] EWHC 698 (Admin) – S 101 MCA – s 224(3) TCPA – regs 2(1), 4(1) and 6(1)(a) and Schedule 2(1) and Part 1 Schedule 3(1) TCPCAER – Article 6(2) ECHR – HRA.
  - proving a negative - onus of proving exceptions etc. - reverse burden of proof on balance of probabilities. – presumption of innocence – right to fair trial. 1) where offence in statute committed by contravention of regulations, s 101 MCA can apply to qualification contained in regulations but not in statute itself. 2) interference with right to fair trial from reverse burden of proof in s 101 MCA imposed on D charged under s 224(3) TCPA was proportionate.
• Williams v Russell (1933) 97 JP 128.
  - onus of negative averment was on the accused to prove the positive of having a policy.
• R v Turner (1816) 5 M&S 206.
  - for party with peculiar knowledge of a positive to prove it.
• R v Hunt [1987] AC 352 - HL - S 101 MCA.
  - burden on defendant to prove exception? 1) the common law applies the principle in s 101 MCA to cases heard on indictment. 2) express words are not necessarily required to place a burden of proof on D. 3) ease or difficulty of proving an exception is relevant in determining burden of proof. 4) ambiguity in absolute offence to be resolved in favour of D.
• Skipaway Ltd v Environment Agency [2006] EWHC 983 (Admin) - S 33(6) EPA - s 101 MCA - article 6 ECHR - s 28A SCA.
  1) on appeal by case stated, parties may not refer to evidence not set out in the case. - meaning of words in written instrument to be construed in context of whole document. 2) A remote possibility does not constitute reasonable doubt. - waste containing a significant amount of controlled waste was controlled waste. 3) criminal trial not a tactical game. - s 101 MCA - burden on D to prove “exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification” where D could prove it but P could not. 4) waste is “stored” even if it is the subject of processing. 5) no breach of Article 6 ECHR where the unfairness can be remedied on appeal.