Sheppard and Another, Regina v: CACD 29 Jan 2010

The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to materials published on their website which was hosted in the USA. It included materials calculated to create hatred of Jewish and black people. The defendants argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because the site were hosted in the US.
Held: The materials were created in the UK and were intended to be seen by people in the UK and offered re-distribution of printed material from the UK. The ‘substantial measure’ test was correctly applied in the context of the 1986 Act: ‘Whilst in 1986 the world-wide web was a thing of the future and computers were in their infancy it seems to us clear that ‘written material’ is plainly wide enough to cover the material disseminated by the website in the present case. The judge took the same view. He said that what was on the computer screen was first of all in writing or written and secondly that the electronically stored data which is transmitted also comes within the definition of written material because it is written material stored in another form.’

Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mr Justice Cranston
[2010] EWCA Crim 65, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 68, [2010] 1 Cr App R 26, [2010] 1 WLR 2779, [2010] 2 All ER 850, [2010] Crim LR 720
Public Order Act 1986 19(1)
England and Wales
CitedTreacy v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1970
Blackmail was alleged under section 21 of the 1968 Act, the letter making the unwarranted demand with menaces having been posted from England to an intended victim in Germany.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. To allow an English court to have . .
CitedSmith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
CitedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .
CitedRegina v Sansom CACD 2-Jan-1991
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to . .
CitedRegina v Manning CACD 24-Jun-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by deception where part of the offence had taken place abroad.
Held: Smith should be overturned. The last act or terminatory theory remains the binding common law of England and . .
CitedRegina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 1) CACD 13-Nov-1995
In the offence of fraudulent trading, ‘creditors’ are those to whom money was owed, including future creditors, not just those who can presently sue. Deceptions practised in UK, but having their effect abroad are prosecutable here. The only feature . .
CitedRegina v Perrin CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.396487