"In my view, the evidence to which I have referred supports the conclusion that the items were designed to resemble a tobacco product because they were intended to be used to inhale vapour in a manner very similar to the inhalation of tobacco smoke when using a cigarette. That the items were designed to resemble a cigarette in this way can be discerned from the description given to the products by the manufacturer (as electronic cigarettes), from the manner in which the items are used (both having regard to the manufacturer's user manual, to the admissions made by Mr Van Heerden and having regard to the website pages) and from the appearance of electronic cigarettes, such as the items, during use (particularly the conveyance of the electronic cigarette to the user's mouth using their hand, the inhalation and exhalation of the vapour, and the fact that the vapour is reminiscent of the smoke from a cigarette). Having regard to the proper construction of s 106, on the evidence before the learned Magistrate, and in view of the admissions which were made, the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt."