THE HIGH Court has been asked to decide whether a prosecution under the Tobacco Acts was correctly dismissed against tobacco manufacturer PJ Carroll for giving vouchers to shop staff as a reward for promoting its tobacco products.
President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns has reserved judgment on legal issues which arose in the District Court prosecution.
The company had denied charges by the Health Service Executive of giving, or causing to give, “financial assistance” to Spar in Dublin City University and one of its shop assistants, on a date unknown between July 1st and September 31st, 2009, in consideration of the promotion of a tobacco product.
The case arose after all advertising of tobacco products was banned in shops in Ireland in July 2009, with tobacco products now stored in closed contained units.
In District Court proceedings against PJ Carroll Ltd, the HSE alleged that, under the company’s Pocket a Packet scheme, shop staff and owners were motivated to promote Pall Mall cigarettes under a “mystery shopper” scheme.
It was also alleged when customers asked if the shop stocked Benson and Hedges, John Player Blue or Mayfair King Size cigarettes, staff would be rewarded with a €30 One4All voucher if they responded saying: “We also stock Pall Mall, which is the best-value cigarette on the market.”
Shops that passed the mystery shopper test would also be entered into a draw for wholesale vouchers worth €1,000, €2,000 and €5,000, it was claimed.
A HSE officer gave evidence last year in Dublin District Court of visiting PJ Carroll’s offices in 2009 and 2010 when she was given documents in relation to the company’s marketing. They included a list of retailers who participated in the Pocket a Packet scheme and won vouchers and/or wholesale draws, the court heard.
On June 24th last, Judge Bridget Reilly held the scheme was a promotion but also found the term “financial assistance”, as set out in the Tobacco Acts, did not include a gift, prize or reward such as a voucher, and she dismissed the prosecution.
The judge agreed to certify legal issues arising from her ruling for determination by the High Court, including whether her findings as to what constituted “financial assistance” were correct in law.
The court was also asked to rule whether she was correct in holding that what the company did amounted to a “promotion” for the purposes of the Tobacco Acts.