The defendant, which operated a duty-free store at Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport, pleaded guilty to 7 offences of display of tobacco advertisements in contravention of s16 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008. The offences were committed by the retail display of tobacco packages bearing tobacco brand names, because the brand names on the packages amounted to "tobacco advertisements" as defined in the Act.
The Court ordered that the defendant pay fines totaling $337,500, in addition to the prosecutor's costs of $50,000.
Chant v The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 399
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"In the assessment it is, as senior counsel for the Prosecutor observed, necessarily to bring into consideration the objects of the NSW Tobacco Act. These include the reduction of the incidence of smoking based on the fact that the consumption of tobacco and smoking products has been recognised as adversely impacting on the health of the people in NSW and thereby placing a substantial burden on the State's health and financial resources. The circumstances in which the subject offences were committed involved a display of packaged tobacco products in the manner described in evidence which involved the display of various brands of tobacco products on open shelving available in view of members of the public who were departing Australia having passed the Australian Immigration checkpoint."
"In determining the penalties to be imposed with respect of each of the 7 offences I am required to consider and evaluate the evidence as to the circumstances constituting the offences for the purpose of determining the objective seriousness of each. In that respect the photographs tendered in evidence clearly sufficiently identify the relevant matters constituting the "tobacco advertisement" arising from each display and relevant surrounding circumstances.
In determining the objective seriousness of the offences I have also considered the evidence introduced on behalf of the defendant corporation of the sentencing hearing as to the (mistaken) understanding held by its Compliance Officer that, the defendant as a duty free operator, was exempt from compliance with parts of earlier legislation that applied to tobacco retailing at its airside stores.
In the assessment it is, as senior counsel for the Prosecutor observed, necessarily to bring into consideration the objects of the NSW Tobacco Act. These include the reduction of the incidence of smoking based on the fact that the consumption of tobacco and smoking products has been recognised as adversely impacting on the health of the people in NSW and thereby placing a substantial burden on the State's health and financial resources."
"The offences committed on 23 December 2009, as indicated above, each relate to the display of an advertisement in breach of s 16 of the NSW Tobacco Act. The offences were all committed in the same store but, as the Prosecutor observed, they each concern the advertising of 7 different types of tobacco product.
In respect of each offence there was displayed in the relevant advertisement a brand name, used by the manufacturers or distributor of the tobacco products. The Prosecutor submitted that it is to be presumed that the tobacco advertisements were designed to promote or publicise the respective tobacco products to which the advertisements related.
The Prosecutor further submitted that the offences were objectively serious, and involved a deliberate and planned course of action and that they were committed with the object of financial gain, in particular to promote the defendant's sales of tobacco. As discussed below it was contended that this was an aggravating factor under s 21A (2)(o) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The defendant, which operated a duty-free store at Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport, pleaded guilty to 7 offences of display of tobacco advertisements in contravention of s16 of the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008. The offences were committed by the retail display of tobacco packages bearing tobacco brand names, because the brand names on the packages amounted to "tobacco advertisements" as defined in the Act.
The Court ordered that the defendant pay fines totaling $337,500, in addition to the prosecutor's costs of $50,000.