20/12/18
Delighted Clients | Excellent Result | Trading Standards Case
Share
Kangs Solicitors recently defended two clients charged, alongside four others, with various offences under the Trademarks Act 1994, and associated regulatory offences.
Sukhdip Randhawa of Kangs Solicitors reports upon the proceedings.
The Circumstances | Kangs Trading Standards Solicitors
- Following searches and numerous undercover test purchases conducted by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’), it was believed that counterfeit cigarettes and tobacco were being sold to members of the public in breach of the Trademarks Act 1994.
- CCTV footage revealed the presence of our clients on key occasions.
- Both of our clients had attended for interviews under caution but without representation with the result that they made certain admissions.
- Our clients were summonsed alongside four other defendants to appear before Dudley Magistrates’ Court.
How We Assisted Our Clients | Kangs National Regulatory Solicitors
- Upon taking detailed instructions from our clients it became apparent that they had been manipulated by others in the commission of the offences.
- Detailed negotiations with the Council resulted in an agreement that one of our clients would plead guilty to all of the offences charged, on a limited basis, and the other would plead guilty to fourteen offences with eight of the charges being withdrawn.
- A detailed Basis of Plea was prepared and agreed with the Council for each client and evidence was collated for presentation to the court.
The Successful Outcome | Kangs Criminal Trial Defence Solicitors
- Initially, the Judge was of the mind that this matter should be dealt with as a large scale criminal conspiracy involving all six defendants due to it being a widely organised operation and that the starting point for sentencing would be a custodial sentence.
- However, following mitigation by Kangs Solicitors the Judge accepted that culpability on behalf of both of our clients was low and he accepted the Basis of Plea submitted by both of our clients.
- The Judge accepted that both of our clients had been recruited as helpers and fined one of them the sum of £250 with a victim surcharge of £30 and costs of £300 and the other was fined £200 with costs of £300 and a victim surcharge of £30.
- The Prosecution had unsuccessfully sought to recover costs of £1151.57 against each client.
- Both clients were ecstatic with the outcome and complemented Kangs Solicitors on achieving this highly favourable outcome.
How Can We Help You? | Defending Trading Standards Prosecutions
Our specialist team is available to provide advice and assistance throughout the entire process from the initial interview, through to Trial if necessary.
Should you have any questions, or need advice on any regulatory topics please do not hesitate to contact the team through any of the following:
Sukhdip Randhawa
srandhawa@kangssolicitors.co.uk
0121 449 9888 | 020 7936 6396 | 07989 521 210
John Veale
jveale@kangssolicitors.co.uk
0121 449 9888 | 020 7936 6396
New Sentencing Guidelines (‘the New Guidelines’), which come into effect on 1st January 2020, have been issued covering adults convicted of Public Order Offences. John Veale of Kangs Solicitors comments upon the changes. Background | Kangs Sentencing Advisory Team In August 2008, the Sentencing Guidelines Council published Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines in respect of such […]
01/11/19
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down an important Judgement protecting legal professional privilege (‘LPP’). Helen Holder of Kangs Solicitors explains the nature of LPP. What is Legal Professional Privilege? | Kangs Criminal Law Advisory Team LPP protects all communications between professional legal advisors and their clients from being disclosed without each individual client’s […]
31/10/19
A cut-throat defence arises where, during criminal proceedings, a defendant gives evidence on his own behalf and which is not only likely to strengthen the prosecution case but is designed to damage a co-defendant’s case to the extent that it may go as far as blaming the co-defendant whilst endeavouring to exonerate himself. John Veale […]
30/10/19
