reasonable view of all the evidence that the appellants’ activities should, on the basis of international comity, be dealt with by another country. 23. Mr Sandiford, for the Crown, submits that the judge was correct to rule that the “substantial measure “test was satisfied for the following reasons:  Sheppard operated and controlled the website from within the jurisdiction;  the material was uploaded, maintained and controlled from within the jurisdiction;  the material, the subject of counts 4 – 8, was written and edited within the jurisdiction;  the material the subject of counts 9 – 15 was collated and selected within the jurisdiction;  Sheppard’s website included a dedicated British page (no other country had such a page) on the website and offered books for sale with prices and postage quoted in sterling;  Sheppard’s website and Whittle’s column in which the material the subject to counts 4 – 9 was published were linked to websites such as that of the British People’s Party;  E-mail traffic between the appellants revealed their intention to publish the material on the website within the jurisdiction and they claimed to have done so in order to satirise political correctness and redress an unbalanced media. 24. There was in our view abundant material to satisfy the “substantial measure” test. However, Mr Adrian Davies for Sheppard in a submission supported by Mrs Linda Turnbull for Whittle submits that this is not the correct test and that Wallace Duncan Smith (No. 4) is of no assistance in determining the issue of jurisdiction in the present case. Wallace Duncan Smith was convicted of one count of fraudulent trading contrary to section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 and two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Smith, a Canadian national, was chairman and managing director of a merchant bank which ceased trading in 1991. It was subsequently wound up owing its unsecured creditors some £92m. It also controlled other companies based in Canada, including Wallace Smith Holdings (WSH). Working from this country and using a group of companies which he controlled, Smith set up various bogus deals between the merchant bank and WSH which boosted the size of the merchant bank’s profits. While the dishonest arrangements were put into operation by Smith in this country, the obtaining of the money took place outside the jurisdiction when the money was paid into a bank account in New York. 25. The problem faced by the court in Wallace Duncan Smith (No 4) was a conflict between the decisions of this court in Smith (No. 1) [1996] 2 CAR 1 and R v Manning [1999] QB 980. As the Lord Chief Justice observed at paragraph 48, the issue was an important one and involved the extent to which it was appropriate for the court to develop the common law as to jurisdiction in order to meet the changing requirements