EVOLUTION EVENT PROMOTIONS LIMITED
An Evolution Experience Limited Company
Thursday, 29 January 2004
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE
Evolution Event Promotions Limited was today sentenced for a single breach of Section 14(1)A of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The company was found guilty of making a false statement by way of a letter to Mr David Howlett, organiser of the Haverfordwest Round Table Carnival that Ali-G (real name Sacha Baron Cohen) was to attend the Haverfordwest Carnival in July 2002.
The company was originally indicited for three breaches of the Trade Descriptions legislation. However, Pembrokeshire County Council, the prosecuting authority dropped one of the counts after the jury had been sworn in at the trial. The company were found not guilty of another similar charge.
The jury found that in a letter to David Howlett on 2nd July 2002 the claims that Ali-G was booked for the carnival were not knowingly false as the company firmly believed the booking to have been genuinely made through third party RU Sorted Limited, a promotions and magazine company based in Swansea which ceased trading mid-July 2002.
The company regrets that the jury did not accept that 8 days later, on the 10th July 2002, we still had that firm belief.
Said company secretary Joe Smith who represented Evolution at Crown Court: The evening event at the Park House Exhibition Centre to which Ali-G was also supposed to attend was cancelled after a noise abatement order was imposed by Pembrokeshire County Council. All of the 750 ticket holders received a full refund, and no one was left out of pocket.
The company apologises for the mix up over Ali-G but refuses to accept that a false statement was knowingly made. The company accept that the management at the time should have not been so hasty to have accepted the RU Sorted Ltd booking as genuine. he continued
Said Mr Smith. We were pleased that Mr Howlett acknowledged in a letter passed to the Judge that Evolution Event Promotions Limited kept its word and printed carnival programmes and advertising posters promoting the carnivals sponsors. We are also pleased that Mr Howlett confirmed that despite the non appearance of Ali-G the 2002 carnival was the most successful and profitable carnival to date.
The company was granted a conditional discharge for 2 years, and ordered to pay 1,000UKP towards the County Councils costs within 7 days. The company plans to appeal.
_________________________________________________________
PRE SENTANCE REPORT - THOMAS SINCLAIR
prepared by the staffordshire probation service
INTRODUCTION:
This report is based on two office interviews. I have not been provided with prosecution papers but Mr. Sinclair has provided me with various documents, including from the Prosecution, relating to the case and press cuttings. I have confirmed previous convictions via the Police. There is no history of Probation Service involvement and prior to interview, Mr. Sinclair was not known to me.
OFFENCE ANALYSIS:
Without the benefit of all witness statements, I am largely reliant on the defendants account. He founded Evolution Events Promotions on 5th August 2000 as a sole trader, later converting it into a limited company in May 2001. The company specialised in largely musical entertainment events primarily in Pembrokeshire and was apparently registered as a non-profit making organisation. An event was scheduled for 20th July 2002 in Haverfordwest, which coincided with the annual town carnival being organised by the local Round Table. The Chairman of the Carnival Committee, Mr. Howlett, wrote to request the involvement of Evolution and, on behalf of the company, Mr. Sinclair replied in the affirmative on 2nd July, indicating that the entertainer Ali G would be attending and could open the carnival. It seems that Evolution had obtained the services of Ali G via input from a further company, R U Sorted? Ltd. This latter company had apparently sent a fax to Evolution, which was in the form of a letter confirming Ali Gs attendance.
On 1st July, Mr. Sinclair had made arrangements for a stand in impersonator to cover for Ali G should he not attend the event: this was apparently a form of contingency planning which the company had practiced on other occasions and he insists, and I understand it is accepted, this was not part of a deception. The situation was further complicated by R U Sorted? Ltd. ceasing trading during this period. The prosecution contend that when fax was forwarded on 10th July, Mr. Sinclair was fully aware that Ali G would not be attending. During the trial, he maintained that in sending the fax, he was acting in good faith and had no intention to deceive: this remains his view and he insists that it was not until later that he became aware that the entertainer would not be available as the Milford Mercury began to make enquires. Subsequently, the Council served a Noise Abortment Notice, effectively closing the planned event down. Evolution obtained expert sound level advice and then went on to refund 756 tickets purchased to that point. Evolution still produced carnival brochures and road signs, which was apparently above their scheduled commitment.
By Mr. Sinclairs account, there is no premeditated intent to deceive, although the jurys finding suggests the contrary. Given the non-profit nature of the company, there would not seem to be any significant financial motive. Indeed, given Mr. Sinclairs continued protestation of his innocence, it is difficult to assess motive.
It would seem that no members of the public suffered financially as all tickets were refunded and there were apparently no complaints from the public. The primary victim would appear to be the carnival organisers. Mr. Sinclair believes that his case has been prosecuted as a test matter but also because of lengthy ongoing disputes over the licensing of a club in Tenby, which itself has an involved history. He tells me that the Council initially offered him a caution in relation to the present matter. This he declined due to the implication of guilt. He feels that throughout his motivation has been to put Pembrokeshire on the map in terms of live entertainment events and provide something for local young people. With hindsight, he accepts that he may have tended to concentrate too much on a long-term vision without addressing local and more immediate concerns as he should. Given his view of the conviction, he is clearly not in a position to express remorse. However, he has written to the Round Table apologising for the mix up and he regrets any disappointment felt by members of the public who purchased tickets. On 28th November 2002, he ended his formal association with Evolution.
OFFENDER ASSESSMENT:
There is, according to Mr. Sinclair, one previous conviction for use of a loudspeaker system for advertising without full observance of the necessary regulations. Whilst this is also related to the entertainment business, there is no implication of dishonesty. The local Police have no record on the National Computer of any prior conviction. There is no established pattern of offending and no history of drug or alcohol misuse: indeed, he tells me that events he organised would often involve promotion of appropriate health and drugs advice.
Mr. Sinclair has spent most of his life in Milford Haven and the family are long established in this area and integrated into the local community, his father being a member of the local Council. He is the eldest in a family of four, having two younger brothers and a younger sister. The family are reported to be upset by the considerable media coverage of the case but are supportive. Normally, he lives alone in a privately rented flat close by the family home and has a term time address in Stoke-on-Trent, where he is studying at Keele University.
Mr. Sinclair completed his secondary education at a private school in Portsmouth, transferring to a state school in Haverfordwest to complete his A levels. He then commenced a course at Swansea University in Computer Science but was unfortunately injured in a road traffic accident, which resulted in a fractured skull and ribs and a lengthy period convalescing. Having missed a considerable amount of the course, he went on to organise charity gigs and work part time at Currys. The latter ultimately led to his selection for management training, which he successfully completed prior to becoming the manager of a store in Cardigan. He remained there until June 2001 when he elected to leave to devote himself to the development of Evolution. Since departing from this company in November 2002, he has assisted a friend in opening a club in Cardiff and has been involved in negotiations for the licence of a club in Tenby, which has proved very problematic. On 1st October 2003, he commenced a dual honours Law and Japanese degree at Keele University and he is scheduled as part of the course to spend twelve months from September 2004 at Aoyama Daigakku University in Tokyo. In the long term, he hopes to train as a barrister, possibly specialising in matters pertaining to the entertainment industry.
Financially, he is in receipt of 600UKP per term, which is a Welsh Assembly Learning Grant, and he earns approximately 60UKP per week for home typing via a London based agency. He anticipates that he will accrue debt of 2000UKP per year during his course. (None of the above figures have been verified). In December 2002, he was declared bankrupt as a consequence of the current matter.
ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK OF HARM TO THE PUBLIC AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF REOFFENDING:
There is no indication that Mr. Sinclair poses any risk of harm to the public given the nature of the current offence and, according to the Police National Computer, the absence of any previous convictions. Use of Home Office approved risk assessment tools indicates a low risk of re-offending generally. There are no readily identifiable criminogenic factors and Mr. Sinclair expresses clear pro-social attitudes.
There is no history of serious psychiatric/psychological problems or of self-harm.
CONCLUSION:
Mr. Sinclair has been convicted of the present offence following trial but still maintains his innocence. He felt that he acted properly in returning all public ticket deposits and in continuing to provide services to the local Council. Consequently, when offered a caution by the Council he declined, not wishing to accept the implication of guilt. He tells me that the prosecution insisted the matter be heard at a Crown Count and that he had no desire for the issue to be taken to such lengths and costs. As a result, he potentially faces more serious sentencing outcomes. Whilst custody may act as a punishment, it would likely lead to the loss of his University place and would have a profound impact on his employment prospects, given his chosen career path. In considering community penalties, whilst he would no doubt co-operate fully, the continued expression of innocence and the lack of criminogenic risk factors would mean there would be little focus to a Community Rehabilitation Order. A Community Punishment Order would be feasible as too may be a Curfew Order although there may be problems with the latter, depending on its timing given his dual addresses. Any sentence the Court passes may well have profound impact on his future training and employment, which will ultimately be significant in ensuring there is no re-offending. With this in mind and the fact that no members of the public seem to have been harmed or inconvenienced, the Court might take the view that a Conditional Discharge would be appropriate.
PROPOSAL: Conditional Discharge
Tim Pointon
