Advertisement charges ruled a nullity

Press, 12 February 1986, Page 4

Advertisement charges ruled a nullity

Private prosecutions brought over newspaper advertisements promoting the sale of Trim Milk will not now be tested in the District Court for alleged breaches of the Food Act. This was the effect of a reserved decision given by Judge Paterson in the District Court yesterday when he ruled that charges brought against the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd, and two individual defendants were a nullity. T’ ' J ’ 'eld that th>

Jhe Judge het _ue informant, Paul Robert Harper Maling, retired, had not fairly and fully informed the defendants of the specific nature of the charges against them.

The Christchurch Press Company had been charged by Mr Maling that on December 5 and again on December 19, in breach of section 11 of the Food Act, 1981, it published in “The Press” newspaper an advertisement to promote the sale of Trim Milk.

Michael Pope, an advertising manager, was similarly charged with publishing an advertisement for this product in “The Press” of November 28. The company and

Pope were represented by Mr I. J. Brooks.

Roger Norton, an advertising manager, was charged with two counts of committing a breach of section 11 (1) of the Food Act, 1981, by publishing in the “Star” newspapers of December 12 and 19 an advertisement promoting the sale of Trim Milk. He was represented by Mr T. M. Abbott. When the cases were first called in the District Court on January 24, the prosecutions were challenged by counsel for the defendants, who claimed that the charges did not disclose an offence and that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear them.

The summonses were defective in that they did not specify the alleged breach, and the defendants were thus entitled to refuse to plead to. the charges. Counsel also submitted that the Judge did not have jurisdiction to amend the charges, and that they should* be dismissed. Costs also were sought against Mr Maling. Mr Maling had submitted in support of the charges that his principal

allegation was that the product claimed to be milk when it was not. It was a pasteurised, non-fat milk — which was not milk.

Mr Maling said he had telephoned Messrs Pope and Norton telling them of what he objected to in the advertisements.

Mr Maling advised yesterday that he had filed charges against the Christchurch “Star” newspaper in regard to the advertisements and these would come before the Court on February 21. Accepting the defence submissions, the Judge said in his reserved decision yesterday that the charges laid by Mr Maling purported to be quasicriminal; it was important that they be specific in their content. A defendant had to be fairly and fully informed of the subject of the charges he had to answer. The Judge said none of the charges disclosed an offence or called for a plea to be entered from the defendants;

The Judge held that each charge was a nullity, and said it was inappropriate for the Court to amend them. He awarded

costs of $35 against Mr Maling on each of the five charges. The Judge also ruled similarly, as a nullity, a charge brought by Mr Maling against Brian Topp, manager of the City New World Supermarket in Tuam Street. /

Mr Topp had been charged that, on November 27, in breach of sec- ' tion 10 of the Food Act, he sold a packaged food, Snowdrop Frozen Cream Portions, bearing on the package one or more false or misleading' statements, words, labels.; or marks purporting to indicate the nature, suitability, quality, purity, composition, origin, age dr effects of the frozen pasteurised cream contained in the package. j) This defendant did not i appear, and was not represented by counsel; < at I the Court hearing. The Judge said that in ‘ this case also the charge ; was not specific in Kits .* allegation of what the de- * fendant was supposed to * have done, in breach of the act. The charge bad ’a, merely quoted a section * of the act and he had'no .' hesitation in holding it to • | be a nullity. ? ; t