Redcar v Dady & Ors

Redcar v Dady & Ors

There was no good reason to allow a common law conspiracy to defraud charge where the conduct was precisely covered by s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which includes important procedural safeguards. The Crown cannot bypass statutory limits and protections by resorting to a broader common law offence. Exceptional circumstances justifying a voluntary Bill of Indictment were not present.

Parties
Prosecutor: 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 to prefer voluntary Bill of Indictment refused; restraint orders discharged.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Copyright Infringement, Money Laundering, Statutory Offences Vs Common Law Offences, Procedural Safeguards in Criminal Prosecution
Criminal Law Intellectual Property Law Conspiracy to Defraud Copyright Infringement Money Laundering Statutory Offences Vs Common Law Offences Procedural Safeguards in Criminal Prosecution

Case Brief

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecutor

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 for conspiracy to defraud should be allowed after dismissal of charges
  2. 2 Whether common law conspiracy to defraud can be maintained where statutory offences exist
  3. 3 Whether procedural safeguards under s.297 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and Criminal Law Act 1977 can be bypassed

Ratio Decidendi

There was no good reason to allow a common law conspiracy to defraud charge where the conduct was precisely covered by s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which includes important procedural safeguards. The Crown cannot bypass statutory limits and protections by resorting to a broader common law offence. Exceptional circumstances justifying a voluntary Bill of Indictment were not present.

Court Disposition

Application to prefer voluntary Bill of Indictment refused; restraint orders discharged.

Orders

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