Trading Standards

Q .v. K and K
Crown Court at Gloucester

The Defendants, both Polish Nationals, who were motor mechanical engineers were both charged with 13 Counts:

Counts 1 – 9, Fraud contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Counts 10 – 13 Possession of an article for use in fraud, contrary to section 6(1) of the Fraud act 2006.

Guilty pleas were entered by both Defendants on all counts.

Facts

The counts related to making representations in respect of motor vehicles by way of untrue and misleading entries in vehicle service schedules reflecting the vehicle’s genuine service history; having in their control a Tacho Universal mileage correction device; rubber stamps of dealers in connection with fraud.

Mitigation

Substantial lengthy mitigation was submitted to the Court.

Sentence

Suspended sentences were passed on both Defendants:

• In respect of Mr Kuros, a term of 52 weeks suspended for 2 years, with a requirement to complete 200 hours unpaid work.
• In respect of Mr Klucowicz, 40 weeks suspended for 2 years, with 150 hours unpaid work.

The defendants agreed to the making of confiscation orders and to release money to Trading Standards, to pay costs and compensation sought. Trading Standards settled their own application for costs.

The Law

The Fraud Act 2006:

Section 1:

On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or both).

Section 6:

On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).

---

---

L .v. Q
Luton Magistrates Court

The Defendant, the Managing Director of a well known Restaurant/ Shisha Bar, was charged with the following two charges:

• Supplied Tobacco products in breach of Regulation 14 of the tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002, (“The Regulation”), namely supplied tobacco which did not comply with the requirements in 7(1)(a)(i) &(ii) of The Regulations to show visible warnings on the product, contrary to Section 12(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987.
• That a person with management or control of a smoke-free premises as defined by section 2 Health Act 2006, namely as Director, failed to prevent smoking in an enclosed area as defined by Regulation 2(1) of the Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006, contrary to section 8(4) Health Act 2006.

The Law

In respect of Section 12(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987, Section 12(5) states that a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

In respect of section 8(4) Health Act 2006, a person who fails to comply with the duty, or any corresponding duty in regulations commits an offence. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding a level on the standard scale specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Defence

A plea of not guilty was entered to both charges, and a comprehensive Defence Statement was served on the Council’s Solicitors. At the case management hearing, a Basis of Plea drafted by Penman Sedgwick was accepted by the prosecution, and the charge under section 12(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987, the most serious, was withdrawn before the Magistrates, and a plea of Guilty accepted in respect of section 8(4) Health Act 2006.

Mitigation

Penman Sedgwick provided mitigation in respect of the offence and sentencing powers to the Court.

Sentence

A Fine of £1,500.00 £15 victim surcharge Prosecution costs reduced to £3,000.00 Collection Order extended to a 2 month period (from normal 14 days).

---

---

H .V. M
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant appeared in trial before the Magistrates Court on six summons relating to a very serious fire in two flats to where he was in control of the premises in connection with carrying on a business, and under a legal obligation to comply with the requirements of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, on the following separate summons:

• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (i) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 8 (1) (b) of the Order.
• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (ii) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 9 (1) of the Order.
• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (i) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 13 (1)(a) of the Order.
• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (i) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 14(1) of the Order.
• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (i) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 14 (2)(b) of the Order.
• Failed to comply with Article 3 (b) (i) of the Order, failed to comply with Article 14 (2) (h) of the Order.

Notes

Article 3 – Provides the meaning of `responsible person`, who has control of the premises in connection with the carrying on of a business.
Article 8 is the duty to take general fire precautions.
Article 9 relates to risk assessment.
Article 13 relates to fire-fighting and fire detection
Article 14 relates to emergency routes and exits
Part 4, Article 32 (1) It is an offence for any responsible person to (a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by Articles 8 – 22, where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.

A person found guilty is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

Result

Penman Segwick successfully argued that summons numbered 4 and 6 be withdrawn. The Defendant pleaded guilty to summons 1, 2, 3 and 5. Such offences are very serious. Legal submissions were made that the sentencing power be retained in the Magistrates Court, and were successful.

Penman Segwick argued against the prosecutor on legislation put forward by way of case law, for a sentence to meet the severity of the incident that occurred.

Sentence

On the basis of full mitigation put to the Magistrates: Each of the guilty verdicts provide a financial penalty of £5,000.00, and prosecution costs of £7,394.58; the total amount being £27,394.58

Reported in: Watford Observer (Bushey, Radlett and Aldenham) – Issue 4 March 2010.

---

---

London Borough of Ealing .V. Deko Furniture Ltd. and Mr. A Pozanski and Mr. R Poznanski
Ealing Magistrates Court

Plea of Guilty

The Company was summonsed on 5 charges contrary to the requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 as amended, contrary to Regulation 15 of those Regulations and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In Court after submissions, one charge was withdrawn.

Additionally, each Director was summonsed with 5 charges contrary to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations (1) 988 as amended, contrary to Regulation 15 of those Regulations and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and neglect as a Director of the body corporate by virtue of Section 40 of the Act.

After submissions 5 charges in respect of the second Director were withdrawn.

---

---

H .V. S
Watford Magistrates Court

Client company, a retail jewellers of silver designs, was prosecuted on 3 counts:

• (1) Section 1(1)(a) Hallmarking Act 1973
• (2) Section 1(1)(b) Hallmarking Act 1973
• (3) Regulation 6(1)(e) contrary to Regulation 10(1)(a) of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008

After preliminary submissions count 3 was withdrawn. Client company entered guilty pleas to counts 1 and 2. With mitigation, a fine of £2000 was provided by the Court.

This was a prosecution that could have been tried before the Crown Court and sentenced to a fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both under Schedule 3 Provisions as to Offences of Part IV of the Act.

---

---

R .V. T
Watford Magistrates Court (Sitting as Appeal Court)

Licensing appeal. Instructed to advise and represent the Appellant, The Royal British Legion, in an Appeal on a licensing matter, namely restrictions imposed and refusal of an extension of licensing hours against the Three Rivers Council, and opposition by members of the public (local residents).

The Appeal was successful and the extension of licensing granted in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003.

Reported in: Watford Observer