Redcar v Dady & Ors [2013] EWHC 475 (QB) (08 March 2013)

Redcar v Dady & Ors [2013] EWHC 475 (QB) (08 March 2013)

The application to prefer a voluntary Bill of Indictment was refused because the alleged conduct fell squarely within statutory offences (particularly s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), and there were no exceptional circumstances or good reasons to justify proceeding by way of common law...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 475 (QB)
Parties
Prosecution: R; Defendant: Marc Dady; Defendant: Carole Dady; Defendant: Graham Dady
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Prefer Voluntary Bill of Indictment After Dismissal of Charges at Crown Court
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Copyright Infringement, Broadcasting Offences, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Intellectual Property Law Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Copyright Infringement Broadcasting Offences Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Marc Dady

Defendant

Carole Dady

Defendant

Graham Dady

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Prefer Voluntary Bill of Indictment After Dismissal of Charges at Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a voluntary Bill of Indictment can be preferred after dismissal of charges by the Crown Court
  2. 2 Whether common law conspiracy to defraud can be charged where statutory offences exist
  3. 3 Whether the facts support charges under s.297 or s.107(2A) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The application to prefer a voluntary Bill of Indictment was refused because the alleged conduct fell squarely within statutory offences (particularly s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), and there were no exceptional circumstances or good reasons to justify proceeding by way of common law conspiracy to defraud, thereby circumventing statutory procedural safeguards and penalties.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to prefer voluntary Bill of Indictment refused
  • Restraint orders imposed in May 2011 discharged