W Stevenson & Sons (A Partnership)& Anor v R

Parliament may make a partnership criminally liable as an entity distinct from its individual partners where the statutory scheme clearly does so. A conviction then attracts one penalty against partnership assets; it neither convicts non-complicit partners nor exposes their personal assets to confiscation as offenders.

Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000, Article 11(2), drew that distinction. A partnership could therefore be indicted in its firm name despite the absence of a prescribed procedural rule. Pleas entered by counsel were effective where all partners authorised them.

The Partnership, a fish-auctioning business, was prosecuted for inaccurate sales notes under the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000. It was convicted after trial on eight counts in one indictment, and its employee, Mr Bick, was convicted of aiding and abetting on four counts. The Partnership later entered guilty pleas, through counsel, on five further indictments.

After the prosecutor sought confiscation proceedings and disclosure of the partners’ personal assets, the partners and the Partnership sought permission to appeal against conviction. They contended that a partnership had no separate legal status, rendering the indictments, arraignments and convictions nullities. The central questions were whether the Order created separate criminal liability for a partnership, whether the proceedings and pleas were valid, and whether individual partners could be personally liable for the resulting penalties.

1. The individual partners’ applications for permission to appeal were refused, and the Partnership’s applications were dismissed. The partners had not themselves been convicted and therefore lacked standing to appeal. The Partnership had shown no arguable ground for challenging any conviction.

2. English partnership law ordinarily treats a partnership as a relationship between persons, rather than a separate legal person. Nevertheless, Parliament may enact a criminal scheme under which a partnership is treated as an entity separate from its partners. That is legally effective where the business is conducted in the partnership name and there are identifiable partnership assets against which a single penalty can be imposed.

3. Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000, Article 11(2), clearly adopted that scheme. It distinguished between an offence committed by a partnership and the personal criminal liability of a partner. A partner was liable only if the offence involved that partner’s consent, connivance or neglect.

4. The absence of an express procedural rule requiring prosecution in the partnership name did not defeat the legislative intention. Indicting the Partnership in its firm name was the obvious and valid procedure. Further, counsel’s guilty pleas on behalf of the Partnership were effective because every partner had authorised them.

5. A fine imposed on a partnership alone could be enforced only against partnership assets. Enforcing it against the personal assets of non-complicit partners would undermine Article 11(2)’s scheme. For the same reason, the partners were not “offenders” for the purposes of confiscation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988; confiscation proceedings could not be founded on the Partnership’s convictions against their personal assets.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the individual partners permission to appeal because they had not been convicted, and dismissed the Partnership’s applications for permission to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Truro The Partnership was convicted after trial on eight counts under the third indictment. Mr Bick was convicted on four aiding-and-abetting counts. The Partnership subsequently entered guilty pleas through counsel on five further indictments.