R v Schildkamp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J0523-1 |
| Date | 23 May 1969 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2820/69 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J0523-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane
No. 2820/69
MR. C. L. HAWSER, Q.C. and MR. G. JANNER appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. BUZZARD and MR. D. SMOUT appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
Last year at the Central Criminal Court, this Appellant was convicted after a change of plea on Count 1 of fraudulent trading contrary to sub-section (3) Section 332 of the Companies Act, 1948, for which he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and on Count 4 of fraudulent conversion and sentenced to one year's imprisonment concurrent, on Count 12 of again fraudulent conversion, one year concurrent, and in addition he pleaded guilty at the outset to Count 2, being an undischarged bankrupt taking part in the management of a company without the leave of the Court, for which he received six months, again concurrent, in other words he received two years in all.
He applied for leave to appeal against his sentence and that was refused by the single Judge and thereafter abandoned.
There the matter rested until recently, when the single Judge extended the time for leave to appeal against conviction on Count 1 only and ordered that the case be listed as an appeal on a point of law. The reason for that was that the company with which the Appellant was concerned, a company called Fiesta Tours Ltd. had never been wound up, and in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Charles Henry Rollafson heard on the 1st April of this year, it was held that Section 332 sub-section (3) applied only to acts done before or in the course of a winding up. If the decision in Rollafson is right, it follows that this Appellant, despite his plea of guilty, cannot be convicted under Count 1, and accordingly in the light of that decision this Court feels that the only course open to it is to allow the appeal and to quash the conviction on that count, Count 1.
Mr. Buzzard for the Crown asks for this Court to certify that a point of law of general public importance is involved, and to grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords. It appears that not only have there been in the past a number of convictions in similar circumstances under this sub-section, but some people are at present in prison pursuant to such convictions, and there are similar prosecutions now outstanding. It is, therefore, of great importance, and particularly to the Board of Trade, to know...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kedai Pajak Fah Ngien and Others v PP
- Foo Loke Ying and Another v Television Broadcasts Ltd and Others
- Alcontara; PP
-
R (Green) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
...which that Act shall apply to broadcasting. But side titles and cross-headings need to be treated with caution; as Lord Reid explained in R v Schildkamp [1971] AC 1 at 10, they are not normally directly considered by Parliament and whilst they ought to indicate the scope of the sections whi......