CTSI Conference 2016 - Intellectual property law In this feature legal Consumer Protection Act 2015 juries CONFERENCE 2016 Faking it A legal session on intellectual property prosecutions involved an example case, advice on engaging juries and a recent Act of Parliament. Maeve Sinnott reports Barrister Miles Bennett opens the session H ow to take on and win difcult and complex intellectual property cases was outlined by a trio of barristers at a conference session sponsored by the Anti-Counterfeiting Group. The presentation Intellectual Property Prosecutions in the 21st Century was organised by London Trading Standards and law rm, 5 Paper Buildings. Miles Bennett introduced a session on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the investigators powers included within it, which apply to trading standards ofcers. In an informative and comprehensive presentation, he gave an overview of the powers and the potential restrictions and extensions, before turning to recent case law relating to search warrants. Presenting IP cases to juries Denis Barry amused, bemused and informed delegates with his presentation, How to make an intellectual property case live for a jury. There are a number of challenges involved: victims of intellectual property are often not poor, and explaining the case can be technical, which holds a risk of failing to interest the jury or the judge. Using real exhibits, seized during a search, is a good way of helping to hold a jurys attention and enliven your case, he said. I once worked on a case involving wristwatches, in which someone was demonstrating why a counterfeit watch was counterfeit, Barry said. She held it up and one of the arms fell off. That was a great moment, and the defendant pleaded guilty shortly thereafter. Barry stressed that thinking about a case from a jurys perspective is key. There are various ways in which people learn and, of course, any jury that you are in front of are learning you are teaching them about the case. Visual, verbal, physical, logical and aural evidence can all help. For instance: timelines and following the money are logical evidence; recordings of complaints (aural) provide a break from the barristers voice and garnering the support of experts offers verbal evidence. He advocated using a wireless presentation system to demonstrate the case on a big screen in front of the jury. Its absolutely vital and great in the prosecution of cases. Barry also recommended challenging the jury; dont give it to them on a plate give them a challenge. Most juries, from my experience, he said, are very far from stupid. He then gave a quick run-through of traditional defences I didnt realise the products were counterfeit, I never opened the box, and so on and stressed the importance of gathering strong evidence such as: following the money; noting events happening again and again; details about suppliers; bad character; and information from diaries or personal notes. Barry ended his presentation urging delegates to make more use of electronic presentation of evidence in trials, although he amused his audience by recalling the moment when an unfortunately timed alert on his laptop popped up on the large screen mid-trial. Worked example of a case The last speaker of the session, Charlene Sumnall, took the audience step by step through an example of a successful intellectual property case that resulted in a 27-month jail sentence. It involved counterfeit video games, but Sumnall compared and contrasted the case with another involving counterfeit pornography and tobacco. A tip-off was received about a website advertising and selling R4i cards (memory cartridges for Nintendo consoles), enabling the playing of counterfeit video games. An examination of the website showed that the individual also modied Xboxes and PlayStation consoles. A warrant was obtained and executed, and computers were seized along with various items of correspondence phrasing which Sumnall heavily objected to. It tells me precisely nothing about what those documents are, she said, and she urged delegates to include clear descriptions. Other advice included taking a print-out of the website, both on the day of the search and at test purchase stage, researching links from the site and crucially gaining expert advice. Getting the expert named on the warrant, lming or photographing everything before seizing items, and taking anything that connects to the internet these reveal a wealth of information were the tips for the search stage. Sumnall turned to another case, to demonstrate the importance of lming during a search. An individual, previously prosecuted for selling counterfeit childrens toys, was identied and action was taken under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). However, the search caught the individual and three friends red-handed creating counterfeit pornography. We had video cameras. We lmed everything in the two containers [of counterfeit items] before anything was touched, said Sumnall. Video and photographic evidence meant that, in front of the jury, Sumnall could prove the counterfeit origins of the 30,000 pornographic DVDs seized. Fake money, counterfeit tobacco and even bogus stamps to send out the counterfeit products were also linked to the individual, who was ultimately convicted (though not before attempting to sell counterfeit handbags to court security guards). Sumnall returned to the counterfeit games case, outlining the leading case [R v Christopher Paul Gilham [2009] EWCA Crim 2293] and the key elements that must be proved in similar cases, as well as describing the process of winning the conviction. Primarily, however, Sumnall emphasised the importance of getting experts on-side: approaching them early; setting out clear questions for them; and checking their statements ensuring they are specic to the case and cover all parts laid out by the Gilham case. Credits Maeve Sinnott is a junior reporter for TS Today. Images: Sam Atkins To share this page, in the toolbar click on There are various different ways in which people learn. And of course, any jury that you are in front of are learning you are teaching them about the case Denis Barry You might also like Mini theatre round up July 2016 " , "27":"Official sponsors CONFERENCE 2016 CTSI greatly appreciates the support of all sponsors MAIN SPONSOR CONSUMER DAY SPONSOR ADDITIONAL SPONSORS AWARDS DINNER SPONSORS YOUNG CONSUMER OF THE YEAR