Health Service Executive v. P.J. Carroll & Co. Ltd.
The Health Service Executive prosecuted P.J. Carroll & Company, a tobacco manufacturer/distributer, for providing financial assistance to retailers in consideration for promoting a tobacco product. The company ran a program through which it encouraged sales assistants at retail stores to promote a particular brand of cigarettes when a customer requested to purchase certain other brands. The company employed mystery shoppers to test sales assistants and reward them with a €30 voucher if they utilized the appropriate promotional phrase. In reviewing the lower court’s dismissal of the prosecution, the High Court focused on whether the prize vouchers given to sales assistants were a form of “financial assistance” under the law. The term “financial assistance” was not defined. The High Court affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that financial assistance did not include a “once-off prize or reward of a small sum.” Instead, financial assistance must assist a particular event or activity and is distinct from a “financial contribution.” Because the action was brought specifically as a violation of the provision banning financial assistance (Public Health (Tobacco) Act (as amended), Section 36(2)) and not under the provision prohibiting sponsorship (Section 36(1)), the charges were dismissed.
Health Service Executive v. P.J. Carroll & Co. Ltd., [2012] IEHC 147, High Court (2012).
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.
"I will begin by considering whether the District Judge was correct in determining that the activity engaged in by the respondent in this instance constituted a 'promotion' for the purposes of s. 36(2)(c) of the Act of 2002, as amended. The scheme in question involved the expenditure of significant sums of money on a programme designed to increase the sales of a tobacco product. The money was used to encourage retailers to advocate a particular brand of cigarettes to customers. The documentation created within the respondent company for the particular marketing initiative was entitled "Pall Mall Mystery Shopper Promotion". It would stand common sense on its head in such circumstances to hold that the activity did not constitute a promotion within the natural and ordinary meaning of that term and the District Judge's finding in this regard is, in my view, clearly correct. In fairness to the respondent, the case for any other view was not seriously pressed at the hearing before this Court. I am satisfied that the addition of the word 'promotion' in section 36 may simply be seen as widening the range of activities coming under the prohibition."
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 Health Service Executive prosecuted P.J. Carroll & Company, a tobacco manufacturer/distributer, for providing financial assistance to retailers in consideration for promoting a tobacco product. The company ran a program through which it encouraged sales assistants at retail stores to promote a particular brand of cigarettes when a customer requested to purchase certain other brands. The company employed mystery shoppers to test sales assistants and reward them with a €30 voucher if they utilized the appropriate promotional phrase. In reviewing the lower court’s dismissal of the prosecution, the High Court focused on whether the prize vouchers given to sales assistants were a form of “financial assistance” under the law. The term “financial assistance” was not defined. The High Court affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that financial assistance did not include a “once-off prize or reward of a small sum.” Instead, financial assistance must assist a particular event or activity and is distinct from a “financial contribution.” Because the action was brought specifically as a violation of the provision banning financial assistance (Public Health (Tobacco) Act (as amended), Section 36(2)) and not under the provision prohibiting sponsorship (Section 36(1)), the charges were dismissed.