[VASSILIADIS, Ρ TRIANTAFMLIDLS AND JOSLPIMDES. JJ ] 1^68 Mar 8 MICHAEL GEADIS MICHAEL Appellant, V GEADIS V. DISTRICT DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER LABOUR Respondent (Criminal Appeal No 2990) Shop—Retail tradeorbusiness—Offences contrary totheShopAssis tants Law, Cap 185—Artist photographer's shop οι place oj business—A 'shop' within section 2—Whciein appellant caines on a "retail trade or business' within the section— Therejore he was right!) commed in that hefailed to comph ii ///; the statutory provisions Words and Phi uses—'Shop and ' ictail tiade οι business . in section 2 of the Shop Assistants Law, Cap 185—The words cover the studio of an artist photographei cairxing on therein his projession at a charge—Cfr The Sec ond S( hedulc to the said Law, which is a schedule undei thepun ιso to set turn 6 thereof Photographer—Artist phologiaphct s studio—A " shop whewm the photogiapltc ι carries on a ' ιetail trade or business within section 2 of thesaid Iaw Cap 185(supia)—See aboie Retail trade or business '—See above. Criminal Iaw—Shops—Offences (onticnι to the Shop Assistants I aw Cap 185 — See abou The appellant is a photographer who lake-, photographs at a charge at his usual place ol woik in Nicosia Hedes cribes lunisell as a mastei photographei. specialising in poitrait photogiaphy He was prosecuted as a shopkeepei who failed to compl) with the statutory piousions leleired to in thechaige, which apply to all persons within thedefi nition of a shopkeepei in thestatute viz the Shop Assistants Law, Cap. 185 He was convicted for failing to close his shop on a Saturda> atteinoon contraty to the provisions ot thesaid Law. andfor lading to exhibit in his shop a list ol the names and working hours of his shop assistants con trary lo the lequiiements ol section It of the same Law He now appeals against his conviction Counsel foi the 1Λ OFFICER 1968 Mar. 8 MICHAEL GFADIS v. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICF-R appellant conceded that an ordinary photographer's shop or place of business is a " shop " within section 2 of the statute ; but submitted that appellant's studio is not a " shop " because he is not carrying on there any trade or business, appellant's work being that of an artist and not that of a shopkeeper. In dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction, the Court :— Held, (\) (a) if the case were to be decided on the definition of the expression " retail trade or business " in section 2 of the Law (supra), there might, perhaps, be an arguable case for the appellant ; but if the relevant statutory provisions are construed in the context of the statute taken as a whole, no difficulty arises in their construction. (b) The second Schedule to the statute, which is a Schedule under the proviso to section 6, and forms part of the statute, contains photography as a trade or business exempted from Sunday closing und^r the section. (c) It follows that it cannot be said that the legislator did not intend to include photography as a " retail trade or business " within the provisions of the statute. The legislator expressly put photography within the statute.
(2)Therefore, photography, artistic or not artistic, when practised as a profession is a trade or business within this statute.
(3)The appellant cannot escape the reach of the statutory definitions. They are wide enough to cover his place of business even if that is an artist photographer's studio. Appeal dismissed. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by Michael Geadis who was convicted on the 5th February, 1968 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 22903/67) on three counts of offences contrary to the Shop-Assistants Law Cap. 185 and the Children and Young Persons Law Cap. 178 and was sentenced by Vakis, D.J., to pay a total fine of £8.0.0. A. Paikkos, for the appellant. S. GeorghiadeSy Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. 26 The judgment of the Court was delivered by : VASSILIADES, P. : This is an appeal against conviction by the District Court of Nicosia for failing to close his shop on a Saturday afternoon contrary to the provisions of the Shop Assistants Law (Cap. 185) specified in the charge ; for failing to keep a Register of protected persons, contrary to the relative provisions of the Children and Young Persons Law (Cap. 178) ; and for failing to exhibit in his shop a list of the names and working hours of his shop assistants, contrary to the requirements of section 11 of the Shop Assistants Law, (Cap. 185). The appellant is a photographer who takes photographs at a charge, at his usual place of work in Nicosia. He describes himself as a master photographer, specialising in portrait photography. He wasprosecuted as a shopkeeper who failed to comply with the statutory provisions referred to in the charge, which apply to all persons within the definition of a shopkeeper in the statute. His defence is that he is beyond the reach of the statute in question because he is not an ordinary photographer but an artist of skill and taste engaged in the pursuit of art, and not engaged in -a retail trade or business within the statute. The trial Judge after hearing evidence, which stands mostly uncontested, came to the conclusion that the artistic element claimed by the appellant for his work could not take his case outside the reach of the statute ; and convicted the appellant on all three counts in the charge. In arguing the appeal before us learned counsel conceded that an ordinary photographer's shop or place of business is a l< shop " within the provisions of the statute ; but submitted, that appellant's studio is not a " shop " because he is not carrying there, any trade or business. Appellant's work, counsel submitted, is that of an artist and not that of a shopkeeper. Interesting as the submission may be, in our opinion the case presents no difficulty. It turns on the construction of the statutory provisions in question. If the case were to be decided merely on the definition of the expression "retail trade or business " in section 2, there might, perhaps, be an arguable case for the appellant ; but if the relevant statutory provisions are construed in their context in the statute taken 27 1968 Mar. 8 MlCHAKL GEADIS V. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER Mar. 8 MICHAEL GEAOIS v. as a whole, no difficulty arises in their construction. The second schedule to the statute, which is a schedule under the proviso to section 6, and forms part of the statute, contains photographv as a trade or business exempted from Sunday closing under the section. DISTRICT LABOLH OFFICER In view of this provision in the enactment, it cannot be said that the legislator did not intend to include photographv as a retail trade or business within the provisions of the statute. The legislator expressly put photography within the statute. And photography, artistic or non-artistic, when practised as a profession is a trade or business within this statute. After arriving at this conclusion, one must inevitably come to the next which is that appellant's premises is a " shop " within the definition of the statute, homed as such a conclusion may appear to the appellant as an artist. On the facts of the case as they are on record, the appellant cannot escape the reach of the statutory definitions. They are wide enough to cover his place of business even if that is an artist photographer's studio as he calls it. This is sufficient to dispose of the appeal which must fail and be dismissed. Order occordingly. Appeal dismissed.