Andrew Logie, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Birmingham

A person holding a pedlar’s certificate may trade on a regulated street without a local-authority street-trading licence only while acting as a pedlar under the Pedlars Act 1871. The assessment is fact-sensitive and requires consideration of the whole trading activity. Relevant matters include whether the trader is on foot, uses small moveable equipment, moves towards different customers, and has established a fixed pitch. A pedlar may stop for a reasonable period, ordinarily around 20 minutes, but should generally move on before 30 minutes. Time spent dealing with enforcement officers should not count against the trader.

The claimant was convicted by the magistrates’ court on three charges of street trading without a licence under Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. His appeals were dismissed by the Crown Court, which relied principally on Jones v Bath and held that he had traded from a fixed position for excessive periods.

On judicial review, the claimant challenged the interpretation of the pedlar’s exemption, the factual findings, and the fairness of the Crown Court hearing. The central issues were the proper construction of section 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871, whether the claimant was acting as a pedlar on the relevant dates, and whether the Crown Court’s factual findings were irrational.

1. Claim allowed and convictions quashed. The claimant was acting as a pedlar within the authority of his pedlar’s certificate on all three dates.
2. Section 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871 requires a fact-sensitive assessment of the whole trading activity. Relevant considerations include trading on foot, genuine movement towards different customers, the size and mobility of equipment, and whether the trader has established a fixed pitch.
3. A pedlar may pause for individual sales or to display goods, but must move on regularly. Movement must be genuine and directed towards different customers. Repeated movement merely to create a defence is insufficient.
4. The Crown Court erred in holding that there was no permissible 15-to-20-minute period. Around 20 minutes will ordinarily be permissible, while a period approaching 30 minutes is generally the upper limit in ordinary cases. The assessment remains dependent on the equipment, the nature of the trading and all the circumstances.
5. The claimant’s 26-minute period was close to the limit but did not take him outside the exemption. His movement between Primark and a gym was genuine. The 35-minute period had to be understood as two periods of 15–20 minutes, not as one fixed period. The time spent setting up and speaking to council officers did not establish trading.
6. The Crown Court had been led into error by reliance on Jones v Bath without the earlier authorities. The claimant had not been given a full opportunity to develop his legal arguments. The finding that he had traded for 35 minutes at one fixed spot was irrational on the evidence.

1. Magistrates’ court: convicted the claimant on three offences of street trading without a licence and imposed fines of £300 for each offence.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham: dismissed the claimant’s appeals.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the judicial review claim, substituted a factual finding concerning the 35-minute period, and quashed all three convictions.