Article 7 1.
||National ID|| EWCA Crim 1715|
|Country||United Kingdom||Decision date||18/06/2009|
|Common name||R v. Gilbertson (Lewis Thomas)||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Court of Appeal - Criminal Division||Plaintiff(s)||The Crown|
|Court translation||Court of Appeal - Criminal Division||Defendant(s)||Lewis Thomas Gilbertson|
|Keywords||doorstep selling, anti-social behaviour, elderly, penalties, vulnerable consumer|
+ Expand all
An antisocial behavior order, which was imposed for fraud by misrepresentation and for associated unfair trading offences and prohibits making unsolicited telephone calls to certain consumers, offends the principle of practicality and the principle of necessity.
The defendant had been convicted of two offences of fraud by misrepresentation and two associated unfair trading offences.
The two offences related to two occasions when he had made unsolicited visits to the homes of elderly women, persuaded them to engage him to carry out home improvements and then charge for the improvements despite having carried out little or no work. The unfair trading offences were committed as a result of his failure to inform either of the householders of their right to withdraw from a contract made pursuant to an unsolicited visit within seven days thereby cancelling the contract. He was convicted of the above offences and given a nine month suspended sentence.
In addition, an antisocial behaviour order was made for two years, which prohibited the defendant from making unsolicited telephone calls to private dwelling houses in order to obtain building work, home improvement work or gardening work and from encouraging others to make such calls. The defendant argued that the order was neither practical or necessary.
Is an antisocial behavior order, which prohibits making unsolicited telephone calls to certain consumers, practical or necessary as a punishment for convicted offences regarding unfair trading practices?
The appeal was allowed.
The appeal court held that the potential for the activation of the suspended sentences (nine months), together with the sentence available for any subsequent conviction for similar offences, must in itself have created a significant deterrent against further offending.
It was also taken into account that the defendant was previously a man of good character, whose risk of reoffending was low.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The appeal was allowed and the antisocial behavior was quashed.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|