Another licensee beats foreign football rap

A Portsmouth licensee has walked free from court after a judge decided she had not acted dishonestly in showing Premiership football via a foreign satellite system.

Karen Murphy of the Red, White and Blue in Southsea was prosecuted by Media Protection Services on behalf of Sky for showing live football using Greek satellite equipment.

It is in my view significant that what prompted Karen Murphy to purchase the NOVA system was a promotional event supported by the brewery​District Judge Anne Arnold.

However, District Judge Anne Arnold dismissed the charges against Murphy this morning after she proved she was introduced to the system by her brewery Gales.

Judge Arnold said: "It is in my view significant that what prompted Karen Murphy to purchase the NOVA system was a promotional event supported by the brewery of whom she was a tenant, attended by her area manager and which led her, not unreasonably, to believe the equipment was endorsed by the brewer and legitimate." ​

A spokesman for Fullers, which bought Gales earlier this year, said: "It is inappropriate for us to comment, as this case predates the Fuller's acquisition of Gales. However, our advice to licensees is, and always has been, not to take the foreign systems."​

Judge Arnold's decision is similar to that handed down to former Rochdale licensee Brian Gannon​ who was also cleared of acting dishonestly - her decision does not mean showing foreign satellite football is legal.

The FA Premier League was also pleased with the judge's findings.

Spokesman Dan Johnson said: "What was pleasing about this result is although Mrs Murphy was found not guilty of dishonesty on the facts of her individual case, the district judge found in favour of MPS and the Premier League on all the points of law.​

"The message is clear; if publicans knowingly show any Premier League matches on anything other than a BSkyB commercial license they are breaking the law and risk prosecution and ultimately their livelihoods.

"The court has made it clear that no supplier of foreign satellite systems in the UK can now claim any legal protection or uncertainty and any one doing so would be in breach of Trade Descriptions legislation as well as inducing publicans to commit a criminal offence."

For more on this story and in-depth analysis see this week's Morning Advertiser or click back on Thursday.

To comment on this or any other story email us by clicking this link​

Your Comments​

Finbarr O'Shaughnessy​, via email 27/06/2006Say goodbye to sky, have that holiday you wanted, but could not afford, buy your customers the odd drink, treat a couple to a meal on a special occasion from your menu, give customers a lift home when the taxi lets them down.

Customers remember the good deeds and they will come back, and you will sleep better knowing Sky is not giving you sleepless nights.

Robert Feal-Martinez​ via email 27/06/2006Do I detect that the Judiciary is actually applying morality rather than strict legality to this issue?

The morality obviously being Sky's ripoff prices. Lets hope the OFT finally learns the definition of Monopoly when they re-visit for about the 6th time or will Rupert Murdochs funding of New Labour buy them off again. This issue needs to be tested in the Couirt of Appeal. I for one feel that the law is far from clear, and I am use to interpretting legislation.

Mike Cobain​, via email 27/06/2006I hope publicans can read through this and understand the hypocrycy of the double standards that you are being fed by this organisation.

Dan Johnston claims that the judge has made it clear that no supplier of foreign satellite systems in the UK can now claim any legal protection or uncertainty and any one doing so would be in breach of Trade Descriptions legislation as well as inducing publicans to commit a criminal offence.

Do you remember their comments when Brian Gannon won? Just to remind you of Ray Hoskins words.. "We accept the court's decision but this sets no legal precedent "

He is right but yet now claims that one of the judges comments now set a "legal precedent" that foreign satellite companies are operating illegally.

So Dan tell us, are these "legal precedents" only set when it suits your argument, or do they just not apply when they go against you?

If we all believe that what Dan has said then read the law page on pubfootball.co.uk and find out how many were set at the Gannon case. If what Dan is saying is true then it is a free for all.

I think you need to be brave Dan and stop these silly games and ridiculous accusations of criminality, take it to the High Court where it belongs instead of manipulating untechnical, naive judges!!!!

Dont be fooled by the spin guys!

Kev Jackson​ via email 27/06/2006Yet another victory for the publicans.....yet the FA spokesperson still insists it is illegal.....that must be aleast six cases now where the FA has failed to win.

S*y have increased their prices yet again ( probably to cover the costs of the lost cases ) so it will only push more publicans over to foreign satellites.