"In response to this particular submission, the prosecutor sought to rely upon the evidence of one of the police officers, Constable Fifita. Constable Fifita told the Court that, apart from his police work, he also operated a family shop and he sold Kuonga cigarettes. Crown counsel submitted that as no challenge had been made to that statement by the police constable, it followed that Kuonga could be taken to be a tobacco product within the meaning of the Act. The Court was, in fact, told nothing about the Kuonga product. No Kuonga cigarettes or cigarette packets were produced in evidence or shown in the photographs exhibited. In the absence of any evidence on the subject, the Court is, therefore, being invited to infer that the Kuonga cigarettes Constable Fifita referred to came within the statutory definition. The Tobacco Control Act is a penal Act and, as such, it falls to be strictly construed. In a prosecution under the Act it is up to the Crown to establish all the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot rely upon the Court to draw inferences unless a sound factual substratum has been established from which it can reliably be concluded that those inferences must inevitably follow."