Kembaraxtra-Case Law- Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare (1976)

Case Summary

• Case: Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare (1976)
• Facts: Defendant advertised a police radar alerting device. Operating the device required a license, making its use without one illegal. Ownership itself was not illegal.
• Issue: Was advertising the device an incitement to an unlawful act?

Legal Principle

• Holding: The defendant was found guilty of inciting an unlawful act.
• Reasoning (Park J): Incitement can be implied from the overall actions, even if not express. The advertisement persuaded and incited the use of the device, which, without a license, was unlawful.
• Key Concept: Actus reus (guilty act) for incitement can be implied rather than explicitly stated.

Modern Context Note

• Subsequent Legislation: Radar alerting devices are now exempt from licensing requirements under the Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989.
• Implication: The specific act in this case (operating a radar alerting device without a license) is no longer unlawful due to changes in legislation. However, the legal principle regarding implied incitement remains relevant.