In an earlier decision, James J found the defendant guilty of breaching s61B of the Public Health Act 1991 by displaying a tobacco advertisement.
The defendant owned a number of convenience stores. It committed the offence by directing its employees to tell customers who were buying cigarettes that they could have a second pack of cigarettes at a reduced price. Following that decision the defendant plead guilty to a further 23 prosecutions arising out of identical circumstances.
This hearing was to determine the penalty which should be imposed for the offences. James J decided that the objective seriousness of each offence fell well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences under s61B of the Act, in part because in each case the advertisement was only displayed to a single person. His Honour imposed a fine of $5000 for the three offences that were initially contested and $4000 for the 23 other offences. He ordered the defendant to pay the prosecutor's costs in the sum of $50,000.
See also: Robinson v. Eureka Operations Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1235 (19 December 2008).
Robinson v. Eureka Operations Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 784 (13 August 2009)
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.
"However, it was submitted that I should apply the principles in Pearce, so far as they could be applied, by fixing an appropriate penalty for each offence (which, having regard to the similarity of all of the offences and subject to any discount for a plea of guilty where there had been a plea of guilty, should be the same penalty) and then give effect to the principle of totality by the only means available where the only penalty that can be imposed is a fine, by reducing the amount of the fine. The objective would be to produce a total penalty
which would be proportional to the total criminality."
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.
In an earlier decision, James J found the defendant guilty of breaching s61B of the Public Health Act 1991 by displaying a tobacco advertisement.
The defendant owned a number of convenience stores. It committed the offence by directing its employees to tell customers who were buying cigarettes that they could have a second pack of cigarettes at a reduced price. Following that decision the defendant plead guilty to a further 23 prosecutions arising out of identical circumstances.
This hearing was to determine the penalty which should be imposed for the offences. James J decided that the objective seriousness of each offence fell well below the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences under s61B of the Act, in part because in each case the advertisement was only displayed to a single person. His Honour imposed a fine of $5000 for the three offences that were initially contested and $4000 for the 23 other offences. He ordered the defendant to pay the prosecutor's costs in the sum of $50,000.
See also: Robinson v. Eureka Operations Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1235 (19 December 2008).