Sentencing Trading Standards
Case Name: re B Toy Importers
Court: Bridgend Magistrates
Date: 8.3.08
Judge: Lay bench
Statute: Regulation 4 and 13 of the Toy Safety Regulations 1995 False misleading information on Web site as to membership of trade body.
Offence: Toy pistol contained darts that failed to comply with the 60 newton pull test.
Plea: guilty
Total Sentence: £2000 + £1500 fines + £1141. costs
Summary: The Defendant company imports and distributes toys. This was a small consignment of toy pistols which contained a dart with a rubber stopper. The rubber stopper was glued to the plastic dart, but failed the 60 newton pull test when a sample was sent to an independent test house.
The Defendants also had misleading information on one web page which in effect amounted to an online brochure for the products.
Aggravating Features:
The regulations have been tightened up, following consultation by Spain see Rapex as serious injury could result.
Poor recall procedure,
Mitigating Features:
plea of guilty
no actual injury - was a test purchase on information from other TS area.
new due diligence procedure in place including random sampling procedures
reported:
Contributed by: J Barnett and Fox Hayes Solicitors
Case: R v I.B… Court: Leeds Crown Court
Date: 25.06.2007 Judge: HHJ Stewart QC
Plea: Guilty plea at PCMH Total Sentence: 12 months imprisonment.
Summary.
The Defendant, aged 25 years and of previous good character, pleaded guilty at the PCMH to 21 counts of possessing counterfeit goods with a view to gain. He advertised the items for sale on eBay. Trading Standards performed a search of the Defendant’s ‘business’ premises and they seized a total of 1197 items and submitted 21 for analysis by the Trade Mark Holder. The value of the counts featured on the indictment was approximately £9,000. Computer records showed 6000 previous transaction on eBay over the period of a few months (defendant never charged with supplying). Sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
Aggravating Features: Value of items, professional and organised set-up.
Mitigating Features: Previous good character.
Case: Leeds City Council -v- Saqib Ahmed Court: Leeds Magistrates Court
Date: 14th September 2006 Judge: Lay Magistrates
Statute : The Licensing Act 1964
Offence Description: Selling Alcohol to those under the age of 18
Plea: Guilty Total Sentence: £1000 fine
Summary: This was a test purchase case. Leeds City Council had arranged for a 13 year old boy to enter the 'off-license' and buy a selection of alcohol. The defendant served the minor without asking for identification.
Aggravating Features:
Mitigating Features: The defendant had pleaded guilty. First offence. Since the offence he had used all due diligence to make sure it would never happen again. This included visible signs around the shop asking for identification. LCC had also been in again prior to sentence where the defendant had asked the minor for ID.
Case: R v Burns Court: Court of Appeal
Date: 19.6.2000 Judge: Otton LJ, Smedley J Judge Rivilin QC
Statute: Trade Marks Act 1994
Offence: counterfeiting clothing
Plea: Guilty Total Sentence: 12 months custody
Summary: An appeal against sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook on 26 April 2000 by HH Judge Coleman. The appellant had pleaded guilty in the magistrates court to 53 offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and had been committed to the Crown Court for sentence, where he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on each offence concurrent. The offences were specimen offences. The appellant had been selling clothes featuring various brand names which were counterfeit, 500 items of clothing had been seized. The total value of the counterfeit goods had been estimated to be £15,000, however, no offences had been taken into consideration, and the value of the goods referred to in the charges was £1,300. The appellant was 34 years old and had had two recent convictions for offences of trademark infringement for which he had been fined.
Aggravating Features: offences committed shortly after two similar convictions and a Trading Standards warning this type of offence was becoming prevalent following R v Adams [1999] 1 Cr App R(s) 403 a deterrent sentence was called for in this kind of case.
Mitigating Features: plea of guilty
Reported: LTL 15/6/2001 : (2001) 1 Cr App R (S) 63 : (2001) FSR 27
Case Name: Sefton v Harriets
Date: 12.6.2002
Statute: Toy Safety Regulations.
Offence: Failed to comply with BS EN71 1:2001 Clause 4.8 Sharp point Failed to comply with clause 5.2.b fibrous stuffing No CE mark
Plea: Guilty Total Sentence: Total of £850 fines and costs £2,635
Summary:
Various puch bunnies and other soft toys purchased in test purchase failed various sharp point and seam strength tests, so that stuffing could have been ingested by children.
Company are a warehousing operation for South African based operation.
Company conducts own random tests on various product lines.
Mitigating Features:
Plea of guilty
these were minor fails
voluntary recall of product lines following test fails.
the lines have been withdrawn
Contributed by: Jeremy Barnett, Barrister, St Pauls Chambers Solicitors: Fox Hayes
Case Name: Liverpool City Council v Chico UK Ltd
Date: 2.9.1999 Judge: District Judge Ward
Statute: Regulation 13 and 15(1) of the General Product Safety Regulations 1994
Offence: Babywalker which failed a moving stability test.
Plea: guilty
Summary:
This was one offence in a series of prosecutions by Liverpool City Council against a number of manufacturers of babywalkers.
The majority of the summonses were dismissed by the District Judge with substantial orders for costs awarded against central funds.
His essential finding was that the generic claims of unsafety due to design impeding 'bipedial locomotion' and general unsafety were ill founded.
The Defendant company pleaded not guilty to a number of summonses and were successful in their general defence of their products. They also ran an extensive defence of 'due diligence' which involved an expert evaluation of their manufacturing process in Italy.
They however pleaded guilty to one isolated offence following a moving stability failure by a test house in respect of one model.
Aggravating Features:
Design fault - centre of gravity too high Mitigating Features: tests for this failure are unpredictable.
good quality control procedures re design and manufacture full co operation by directors in interview
Case Name: Liverpool City Council v Trend Europa Court: Liverpool Magistrates
Date: 26.4.99 Judge: District Judge Ward
Statute: General Product Safety Regulations Reg 13 and 15(1), bs6468 1989
Offence: moving stability, failure to attach a warning label in accordance with British Standards
Plea: guilty Total Sentence: absolute discharge, no order for costs
Summary:
This was one of a number of prosecutions by Liverpool Trading Standards against manufacturers of babywalkers.
General allegations of unsafety were made, these were not pursued in the light of rulings given in earlier cases.
In this case the company were well acquainted with the regulation of baby products, and involved in the technical committees which set the relevant standards.
Here they argued that the Hass and Lass accident statistics showed an actual reduction in the number of accidents to children using such equipment. They asserted that much of the research relied upon by the prosecution to support the allegations of general unsafety was old and discredited and had been used to support a petition to the US Safety Commission to support a ban, which had been rejected.
They also argued that the sampling methods recommended by the Prosecution were misconceived and based on a misunderstanding of the bs 6001.
The District Judge found that the Defendants had incurred a considerable sum in defending the main summonses and that the prosecution could be described as a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut'.
Mitigating Features:
The effect of a warning label is minimal and does not affect safety The Defendant company was a small firm, well run with excellent record of safety Strong Due Diligence system
Case Name: Southend TS v Funnyman Products
Court: Southend Magistrates
Date: 29.7.08
Statute: General Product Safety Regulations Toy Safety Regulations.
Offence: supply of unsafe product
failing to provide adequate warnings re age
Plea: guilty
Total Sentence: £2,400 + costs
Summary: The company were a small family distributor of novelty items and tricks. The company supplied a number of items including trick pens, exploding chewing gum and caps to a shop in Southend.
The items were labelled adult item or not to be sold to children under 11. The toys were repackaged by the retail outlet together with caps supplied by the Defendants.
The caps had EC type approval for use with approved toy pistols.A trick pen and caps were bought by an 11 year old and given as a trick to a 9 year old boy.
The cap was actived near to his face and cause a minor burn injury to his eye which required treatment but no permanent loss of vision. Proseuction experts failed caps on noise and debris. Defence experts found debris only and noise reduced when used in conjunction with certain toy pistols.
Aggravating Features: injury caused to schoolboy
Mitigating Features: pleas of guilty.
millions of similar caps have been sold for 50 years without incident full voluntary recall implemented substantial financial losses through withdrawl of range and recall ( circa £30,000) Financial hardship to the Defendants