Specialist solicitor defending businesses accused of trade descriptions and misleading claims and omissions offences

A company selling reclining armchairs to vulnerable customers, and its director, had their convictions for engaging in unfair commercial practices upheld. The director had connived in an aggressive commercial practice when he sent a letter to a 75-year-old disabled woman stating that she would only receive a refund if the offer of the refund and the settlement amount remained confidential.

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.

In the case of a car trader guilty of falsely claiming or creating the impression that he was not acting for purposes relating to his trade, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it was proportionate to base a confiscation order on the turnover, rather than merely the profit, on the sale of 58 cars he sold as a private seller. His entire enterprise was characterised by his deliberate misrepresentations intended to meet his objective of avoiding having to provide a warranty.

The phrase "commercial practice" as used in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 could, depending on the circumstances, cover either a single incident or a pattern of repeated behaviour.

The court allowed property seized under search and seizure warrants subsequently quashed on grounds of material non-disclosure to be retained to facilitate a private prosecution by the party responsible for the non-disclosure where it was in the public interest to allow the prosecution to proceed.

A magistrates' court had been wrong, when determining an offender's mode of trial for offences contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 reg.9 and reg.11, in applying fraud sentencing guidelines. Those offences were not based on dishonesty and had no sentencing guidelines.

The conviction of a company which provided parking-management facilities for engaging in a commercial practice which was misleading was quashed where there was an inconsistency between the jury's verdict and its decision to acquit the company on similar charges.

A non-trading entity such as a holding company could be a trader for the purpose of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and could be prosecuted under reg.9 thereof.

A judge should have discharged the jury where a fair-minded, independent and informed observer, knowing that jurors had to be, and be seen to be, unbiased, would have concluded that there was a real risk that during the course of the trial the jury had received information and views from an extraneous source that it could not put out of its mind.

The investigation of a complaint of police ill treatment by the same police force complained of did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3, as the availability of an appeal of the investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the possibility of criminal proceedings against the relevant officers ensured that such an investigation was sufficiently independent.

There was no abuse of process warranting a halting of a prosecution for selling an item to which a false trade description had been applied where the goods had been destroyed in the process of being tested, preventing the party from whom the goods had been purchased from conducting their own tests.

Before criminal proceedings were instituted by a local authority, acting in relation to strict liability offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 , consideration had to be given to the terms of the authority's own policy guidelines on the prosecution of offences.

In the absence of duplicity, abuse or impropriety a magistrates court was not entitled in the purported exercise of its discretion, to refuse to issue summonses in the form suggested by a prosecuting authority.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 was not concerned with profit and loss accounting so as to enable a defendant to deduct the expenses of committing a criminal transaction from the receipts of a crime.

Where a motor trader knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that the mileage travelled by a vehicle substantially exceeded that shown on the odometer he could not effectively disclaim the odometer reading merely by stating that it was incorrect if he did not go on to reveal the truth as he knew it.

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.

A total fine of #22,500 for three offences of giving false information that services had been supplied pursuant to s.13 Trade Descriptions Act 1968 was wholly inappropriate having regard to the company's financial status and previous authorities and, accordingly, was reduced to #6,000.

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.

Forfeiture proceedings and an appeal to the Crown Court in respect of a forfeiture order under s.97 Trade Marks Act 1994 were civil proceedings and therefore the Brussels Convention applied.

Guidance as to appeals against Crown Court refusals, in whole or part, to state a case for appeal.

An acquittal founded upon expert evidence was not perverse.