Philip Morris Singapore was charged with violating the country’s tobacco advertising law when it placed a display case with Marlboro cigarettes at an outdoor tent near the site of an event for the 2009 Singapore Formula One Grand Prix. The court found that Philip Morris was not guilty of the offense. The court said that, although the display case constituted an “advertisement” under the law, Philip Morris believed that the property owner’s retail tobacco license extended to the parking lot where the tent was placed. The court found that Philip Morris made a good faith mistake in believing that the area was approved for the display and sale of tobacco products.
Public Prosecutor v Phillip Morris Singapore Private Limited - [2011] SGDC 376 (9 November 2011).
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 had already found that PMS had proven, on a balance of probability, that it had exercise reasonable care when it placed the new CDU in the tent at the St. James Power Station’s outdoor car-park. Similarly, I was of the view that PMS had “exercised due care and attention” when it played the new CDU at the location. It was not disputed by the prosecution, that the mistake that SJ and PMS had made, in thinking that its existing Retail License (exhibit D2) covered or extended to the F1 Event, had been made in good faith by them."
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.
Philip Morris Singapore was charged with violating the country’s tobacco advertising law when it placed a display case with Marlboro cigarettes at an outdoor tent near the site of an event for the 2009 Singapore Formula One Grand Prix. The court found that Philip Morris was not guilty of the offense. The court said that, although the display case constituted an “advertisement” under the law, Philip Morris believed that the property owner’s retail tobacco license extended to the parking lot where the tent was placed. The court found that Philip Morris made a good faith mistake in believing that the area was approved for the display and sale of tobacco products.