Leading business crime solicitor who defends traders accused of applying misleading prices and advertising

A local authority had not acted ultra vires when conducting a trading standards investigation into energy brokers suspected of involvement in mis-selling. It had power to do so under the Localism Act 2011 s.1 and/or the Local Government Act 1972 s.101 and s.111. It did not have to satisfy the expediency test in s.222(1) of the 1972 Act since that test only applied to decisions to prosecute or appear in legal proceedings, and did not encompass investigations or court applications for investigatory purposes.

Two warrants issued under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 reg.21 following an application by a local authority's trading standards department were quashed as the warrants had not complied with reg.22.

It was not appropriate to quash a local authority's decision to prosecute a company in respect of unauthorised advertising where the borough solicitor had granted a general authority to prosecute to another solicitor, leaving her to decide which specific offences to charge.

A warrant authorising the search and entry of premises by a local authority's trading standards officers and the seizure of business documentation and various items was valid and lawfully executed under the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 reg.24.

A sentence of 21 months' imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea to fraud was upheld where the offender, who had a very poor criminal record, had taken advantage of a vulnerable single mother by fraudulently advertising a property for rent and thereby obtained a cheque by way of deposit as well as access to her personal identification documents and financial information.

In considering the statutory defence in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.141A(4), the Crown Court had applied the wrong test in asking itself whether the defendant had been negligent and whether its state of mind was reprehensible.

It was impermissible on an appeal by way of case stated for reference to be made to such further material outside the record provided by the case stated. Parties to an appeal by way of case stated were given the opportunity to make representations on the draft of the case stated.

A street extended to the face of a building so that in every practical sense the outer face of a display window used to amplify sound was in the street, creating an offence of operating a loudspeaker in a street for the purpose of advertising a business.

The appellants had failed to demonstrate that the judge had exercised his discretion incorrectly in refusing to vacate their guilty pleas following the Crown's intention to bring confiscation proceedings against them.

The obligations imposed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to inform suspects of the availability of legal aid were restricted to persons under arrest in police detention or at a police station. The obligations did not apply to trading standards officers, whose obligations were limited to giving a suspect the opportunity to consult a solicitor.

There was no inconsistency between s.1 Weights and Measures Act 1985 and the European Communities Act 1972 so that challenges to the validity of United Kingdom legislation giving effect to the policy of the European Union to introduce the compulsory system of metric weights and measures were dismissed. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Where magistrates held that there was no implied price comparison in an advertisement for two blinds for one special price, their decision was one that they were entitled to reach.

On the facts of this case the respondent, who had sold a magazine with a CD Rom without a classification certificate, was not obliged to carry out independent checks on publications received from a particular supplier and magistrates had been fully justified in concluding that the respondent had established a defence of due diligence under s.14A Video Recordings Act 1984.

An offence could be committed under s.20(1) Consumer Protection Act 1987 without any evidence to prove that an indication by means of a notice applied to specific goods available at a specific price. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

The sale of cigarettes by the appellant to a child under 16 was not unlawful because all reasonable precautions and due diligence to avoid the offence had been exercised.

A retailer who refused to honour a price promise was not guilty of an offence under s.20(2) Consumer Protection Act 1987.

The magistrates had been entitled to find that an information had not been laid out of time even though the original complaint had occurred more than one year before the information was laid.