This was the hearing of Mr Lal's appeal against his conviction for selling two packets of Gutkha to an employee of the Ministry of Health in contravention of s29(2) of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 (s29(2) prohibits the import, sale and distribution of chewing tobacco and other tobacco products for oral use other than smoking).
Mr Lal appealed, amongst other things, on the basis that there was no evidence at the trial that Gutkha was a chewing tobacco.
Andrews J dismissed the appeal, referring to expert evidence that Gutkha contained nicotine, that the nicotine was from tobacco, and that Gutkha is known in India as tobacco suitable for chewing.
Lal v Ministry of Health [2007] NZHC 401 (30 April 2007)
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.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
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 second argument put forward for the appellant was that the product Gutkha was not a tobacco product. On this point the District Court Judge had before him evidence from two expert witnesses. The first was the evidence of Ms Sibley as to her analysis of the product. She gave evidence that the product contained nicotine. Secondly, there was evidence from Dr Braggins, who is a Botanist. He gave evidence as to reviewing the list of ingredients for the products and said that from those ingredients the only one which could contain nicotine was the ingredient listed as tobacco. His conclusion was that the product contained tobacco, although accepting that it was in a very small quantity. The third point raised by the appellant was as to whether there was sufficient evidence that the product was a chewing tobacco. In this respect the District Court Judge had before him evidence of Ms Manjett Singh, an interpreter, and from Mr Sunder Lokhande. Both gave evidence to the effect that Gutkha is known in India as a tobacco suitable for chewing."
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.
This was the hearing of Mr Lal's appeal against his conviction for selling two packets of Gutkha to an employee of the Ministry of Health in contravention of s29(2) of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 (s29(2) prohibits the import, sale and distribution of chewing tobacco and other tobacco products for oral use other than smoking).
Mr Lal appealed, amongst other things, on the basis that there was no evidence at the trial that Gutkha was a chewing tobacco.
Andrews J dismissed the appeal, referring to expert evidence that Gutkha contained nicotine, that the nicotine was from tobacco, and that Gutkha is known in India as tobacco suitable for chewing.