Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

R v Sissen

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Déc 8, 2000
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Appeal
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Résumé
The defendant was a breeder of rare parrots. He was charged in an indictment with four counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a restriction, by virtue of an enactment, on the importation of goods, contrary to section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The prosecution alleged that in 1997 and 1998 he had imported into the United Kingdom endangered macaws, trade in which was prohibited or restricted under article 5(I) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 and article 4(I) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, from Yugoslavia and Slovakia without the required import permit. The prosecution did not content that the point of entry into the European Union was the UK; it was probably Austria. The defendant denied the offences, contending taht where the point of entry into the EU was not the UK the Regulations relied on did not contain any relevant restriction for the purposes of section 170(2)(b) of the 1979 Act and therefore did not impose any restriction on the movement of endangered macaws between or within member states. He was convicted. Upon conviction, the defendant was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent was ordered to pay GBP 5,000 towards the costs of the prosecution. The maximum sentence for an offence under section 170(2) of the 1979 Act is seven years. The defendant appeals with leave against conviction on one ground and renews his application on the ground upon which the single judge refused leave; his application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court by the single judge. The defendant/appellant argued that the judge wrongly rejected the defence application at the outset of the trial to quash the indictment; it was submitted that it disclosed no offence known to English law. He was refused to leave to argue that his interview with Customs and Excise should have been excluded from the trial pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Judgement: The Court reasoned that Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 and (EC) No 338/97 were "enactments" for the purposes of section 170(2) of the 1979 Act; that the 1979 Act clearly incorporated as restrictions the council Regulations which restricted entry of certain goods into the EU as a whole without differentiation between member states; that the territorial scope of the 1979 Act turned on the scope of the restrictions in the enactments in question, which took effect under the Act according to their terms rather than being cut down by the Act; and that, accordingly, it was an offence under section 170(2) of the 1979 Act for a person to be knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the restriction, contained in the Regulations, on the importation of goods into the EU whatever the country of entry into the EU might be. The sentence was reduced in view of the defendant's age, the fact that this is his first prison sentence, and his financial position, having lost already GBP 50,000 for having paid for the birds in the first place, and his motives, albeit legally misguided, in seeking to breed these extremely endangered birds. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.The sentence of 30 months' imprisonment is quashed and substituted by a sentence of 18 months. (Provided by: UNODC SHERLOC)
Texte intégral
UK-3.pdf
Site web
www.unodc.org