Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Law Suits

Disgraceful effort to privilege tobacco business interests over public health has rightly failed utterly – other countries to follow UK lead

http://www.asiantribune.com/node/88979

The High Court challenge to the Regulations on Standardized Plain tobacco packaging by the tobacco industry met with a humiliating defeat on Thursday, 19th of May 2016.

Thus the landmark judgment in the case will help other countries looking forward to introduce Plain Packaging. France and the Republic of Ireland have already passed legislations and other countries including Canada, Hungary, Norway and Solvenia, are expected to follow soon.

It is learnt that tobacco industry has spent millions of pounds on some of the most expensive lawyers in the country with the hope of blocking the policy. This landmark judgment is a severe defeat for the tobacco industry and it fully justifies the determination of the government to go ahead with the introduction of standardized packaging.

The standardized packaging regulations would come into effect in the UK on Friday, the 20th May 2016. All cigarettes manufactured for sale in the UK after this date must comply with standardized packaging regulations. Cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco will be sold in drab brown packages which have had all the attractive features and colours removed.

The judgment by the Justice Green rejects every argument the industry put forward in court. It is highly critical of the industry’s use of expert evidence it commissioned to back its case and its failure to disclose any internal assessments on how packaging design works for children and young people what the effect on standardized packaging on sales is likely to be. The judgment also notes that the great mass of the expert evidence put to the court by the tobacco industry was neither peer reviewed nor published in an appropriate scientific of technical journal.

At present two thirds of current smokers started when they were children and research shows that dull standardized packs are less attractive to young people. The tobacco industry is now considering whether or not to appeal.

Source of Information: Action on Smoking & Health ASH – UK

– Asian Tribune –

Top tobacco companies lose plain packaging appeal

http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/top-tobacco-companies-lose-plain-packaging-appeal-2016052015#axzz49CBnbBvf

Britain’s High Court has rejected a legal challenge brought by the world’s top four tobacco companies against making plain packaging compulsory on cigarettes.

Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Brands had argued the law, due to come into force on Friday, unlawfully took away their intellectual property.

“It is wrong to view this issue purely in monetised terms alone,” the ruling said on Thursday.

“There is a significant moral angle which is embedded in the regulations which is about saving children from a lifetime of addiction, and children and adults from premature death and related suffering and disease.”

Plain packaging means a ban on all marketing on tobacco packages — including colours, logos and distinctive fonts — to try to make smoking less attractive, especially to young people.

Governments around the world are cracking down on the deadly habit that kills about 6 million people a year.

Australia became the first country to mandate cigarettes must be sold in plain packages when it passed a law in 2012.

Reuters

Cigarette firms lose appeal on UK packs

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/business/consumer/Cigarette-firms-lose-appeal-on-UK-packs/shdaily.shtml

TOBACCO giants have lost a legal challenge in London against imposing new rules for standardized packaging due to come into force today, meaning Britain will join a growing list of countries to do so.

Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International had challenged the legality of the new regulations, which mean all new cigarette packs sold in Britain will have to be olive green.

Shops will have 12 months to sell existing packets.

“The regulations were lawful when they were promulgated by parliament and they are lawful now in the light of the most up-to-date evidence,” judge Nicholas Green said in yesterday’s ruling.

Cancer Research UK’s Chief Executive Harpal Kumar said: “This is an important milestone in our efforts to reduce the devastating toll that tobacco exerts on so many families every day.

“It’s the beginning of the end for packaging that masks a deadly and addictive product,” he said.

The European Court of Justice earlier this month ruled that the Tobacco Product Directive is lawful.

Under the directive, health warnings must cover 65 percent of the front and back of every pack of cigarettes, with extra warnings on the top.

The directive also allowed Britain to go further and introduce its own regulations requiring all packaging to be olive green.

A British health ministry spokesman said: “Smoking … kills over 100,000 people every year in the UK.”

Tobacco Companies vs the Department Of Health

Download (PDF, 2.65MB)

Customs officials allegedly involved in drug and tobacco smuggling

http://www.smh.com.au/national/customs-officials-involved-in-drug-and-tobacco-smuggling-20160518-goy672.html

A network of Australian border security officials is allegedly working for organised criminals, including drug and tobacco smugglers, in the most serious corruption scandal to ever hit the nation’s border agencies.

A Fairfax Media investigation has uncovered multiple cases of alleged corruption involving staff from the Australian Border Force and the Department of Agriculture, along with maritime industry employees with government clearances.

In response to the revelations, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Border Force said they were “working actively with law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of serious criminality by its officers at the border”.

Police on Wednesday arrested a Department of Agriculture compliance assessment officer, Richard Vong, over alleged links to organised criminals, including a syndicate led by suspected Melbourne drug trafficker Jimmy Chhav. They also raided his house.

Mr Vong will face court on Thursday charged with trafficking and possessing a drug of dependence, knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime, dealing in property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime and theft of Commonwealth property. A female official has been charged with knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime and dealing in property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.

The allegations come as the government makes a virtue of its strength on border security, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claiming the opposition “lack the commitment to keep our borders secure”.

However, the federal government and customs chiefs, including the nation’s top border security official, Michael Pezzullo, have been repeatedly warned over four years in high-level confidential briefings about significant suspected corruption in the Border Force’s ranks, especially in NSW.

Evidence, including NSW police briefing notes and testimony from crime figures, suggests that one of the most vital border security facilities, the NSW Customs Examination Facility, has been compromised by corrupt insiders, enabling criminals to import large amounts of drugs and tobacco undetected. Staff at the facility are responsible for searching containers suspected to contain contraband.

A small network of Department of Agriculture officials responsible for clearing imports into Australia have also been assisting and liaising with known drug traffickers for at least the past five years.

This network is allegedly led by Mr Vong, a suspected corrupt Department of Agriculture official, who works out of Customs House in Melbourne. The department missed multiple warnings about Mr Vong and some of his colleagues.

Fairfax Media has delayed reporting on the border corruption scandal for several months at the request of authorities.

In NSW, evidence uncovered by Fairfax Media from multiple sources, including agency officials, government briefing files and figures with underworld ties, implicates Border Force officials in drug and tobacco trafficking, and leaking to the criminal underworld.

Criminal intelligence suggests one officer has been taking kickbacks of hundreds of thousands of dollars from traffickers, while another has been facilitating importations.
Suspected corrupt officers are still operating.

The latest scandal comes three years after a network of corrupt customs officers was identified at Sydney airport and charged by the federal police. At the time, Mr Pezzullo promised sweeping reforms, including many which have been implemented.

Top security and policing officials, along with corruption experts, called for the nation’s federal police watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) to have its budget dramatically increased and said the Australian Border Force had failed to deal with corruption in its ranks.

Leading corruption expert and former senior judge Stephen Charles, QC, said ACLEI – which, with about 20 investigators out of a total of 55 staff, is among the smallest corruption fighting agencies in Australia – was badly outgunned. Mr Charles said Australia needed an anti-corruption agency with hundreds of staff.

“It [ACLEI] needs to be ten-drupled,” a law enforcement agency source said.

Fairfax Media can also reveal that officers from the joint state and federal Polaris waterfront crime taskforce in NSW, which has played a key role in identifying corruption on the docks, were last week told they would be shut down due to a lack of funding. State police are furious, but federal government sources insist the funding has been reallocated to other anti-organised crime taskforces.

One briefing describes how a veteran customs officer who has previously worked closely with the AFP and the NSW Crime Commission is suspected of leaking “sensitive information” to drug and tobacco importers. A customs officer is also named as having travelled overseas with a suspected criminal.

Property records obtained by Fairfax Media reveal this customs officer, who was on long-term sick leave, lives next door to the suspected criminal in the Sydney suburb of Sylvania Waters.

The border security scandal comes three years after the Sydney airport customs corruption scandal, in which a network of corrupt customs officers led by customs officer Adrian Lamella were trafficking drugs using couriers on international flights.

The reforms implemented by Mr Pezzullo and the federal government after the Sydney airport scandal appear to have failed to stop significant corruption in the agency.

One senior government source said the Australian Border Force was “incapable” of eradicating corruption in its ranks and sometimes dealt with internal integrity issues with departmental sanctions, such as demotion or sacking, rather than by conducting intensive probes that could expose corrupt networks.

The Department of Agriculture section involved in Mr Vong’s alleged corrupt network was formerly named the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service.

AQIS senior managers were first warned that organised criminals had infiltrated the agency’s ranks in 2012, when an officer was identified, and later charged, for leaking information to a drug importation syndicate.

Information outlining Mr Vong’s alleged links to suspected drug trafficker Jimmy Chhav has been held by various law enforcement agencies for several years, but it is unclear if it was ever formally passed to the Department of Agriculture. However, the department had its own information linking the pair which was never acted upon.

In April 2012, Fairfax Media first reported Australia’s maritime borders were badly exposed to corruption and that a confidential Operation Polaris report had found that “serious organised crime groups are able to access and exploit key Australian government officers.”

“Polaris investigations have identified employees of law enforcement and regulatory bodies providing assistance to criminal groups. This assistance is less common but of higher consequence than private sector corruption. The employees have included members of customs and employees of AQIS.

“Operation Polaris has also determined the government’s Maritime Security Identification Cards – required by tens of thousands of Australians who work in the industry – have failed to stop organised crime infiltration.

“Multiple MSIC holders are involved in drug activity and are subject to substantial intelligence holdings detailing their criminal activity and criminal associates.”

Stephen Charles, QC, a former Victorian Court of Appeals judge and an expert in anti-corruption agencies, said watchdog ACLEI was unable to combat public sector corruption outside of several policing agencies.

Mr Charles, who recently gave testimony to a Senate committee about the need for the establishment of a national anti-corruption agency, said ACLEI’s staff had good intentions but had limited investigative and jurisdictional capacity.

The federal government has recently passed laws to ensure that people with criminal histories are not giving the government security clearance to work on the waterfront or at airports.

Liberal frontbencher Josh Frydenberg said on Thursday morning that the allegations were being dealt with appropriately.

“Such behaviour will not be tolerated and we’ll take every possible measure to ensure that those people, if they have behaved in a way that is criminal, face the appropriate justice system,” he told ABC TV.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said in a statement that although it and the Australian Border Force were “unable to comment on the status of current investigations”, it could confirm that it had been working “in partnership with ACLEI”.

​It said Taskforce Pharos, an internal taskforce set up following the corruption scandal at Sydney airport to target corruption “within the border environment”, continued to operate and had been instrumental in referring matters to ACLEI for further investigation.

“In addition, the Department has provided supplemental funding to ACLEI to ensure matters relating to its own officers can be fully and independently investigated.”

 

The tobacco industry is not happy with the way Australia got its residents to quit smoking

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-tobacco-industry-is-not-happy-with-the-way-australia-got-its-residents-to-quit-smoking-2016-5

Tobacco juggernaut Philip Morris is pissed about Australia providing people with truthful advertising, so it sued the country in secret.

In 2012, Australia moved to remove all branding from cigarette packs, replacing them instead with plain-label packages displaying smoking harms — a move copied by France and Britain.

According to a 2015 report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, tobacco consumption has fallen nearly 3%, the Guardian reported — potentially as a result of the plain-label legislation.

“The minister welcomes any decrease in smoking rates and believes several factors have likely contributed, including education campaigns, excise increases and plain packaging,” Fiona Nash, a spokeswoman for the assistant health minister, told the Guardian in 2015.

Philip Morris tried to fight back by suing on the grounds of “an abuse of rights,” according to the Guardian.

But after a 2015 closed-door hearing held in Singapore, the presiding tribunal decided the Morris claims were “inadmissible” and “precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute.”

The best part is that companies like Philip Morris have tried legal routes like this before, claiming — no kidding — “the new rules impinge on their trademark intellectual property,” according to a MedicalX press release.

By which they probably meant, “It’s hard to sell cigarettes when you show people what cigarettes actually do.”

Fortunately, because Australia has its priorities straight, Nash concluded, “Plain packaging is a legitimate public health measure which is consistent with Australia’s international legal obligations.”

Tobacco firms vow to fight on against plain packaging following High Court defeat

Two of the world’s biggest tobacco companies have vowed to continue to fight plain packaging in the UK, after the High Court today rejected a bid by the cigarette industry to prevent the introduction of the new law.

Plain packets of cigarettes will be officially imposed tomorrow after Mr Justice Green dismissed a challenge against the measure by four industry giants: British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco International (JTI), Imperial Tobacco, and Philip Morris International (PMI).

BAT and JTI immediately said they would seek to appeal the ruling, which means that brands and logos will be banned and packets must be a standardised green-brown, with graphic health warnings. Tobacco companies have a year to sell through their old stock.

The cigarette-makers had argued that the controversial law deprived them of their intellectual property without receiving compensation. They also said the evidence from Australia, the first country in the world to impose plain packaging in December 2012, showed it had been ineffective in discouraging people from smoking.

However, in a ruling that ran to 386 pages, Mr Justice Green decided in favour of the Government, which seeks to cut smoking rates and stop children from picking up the habit.

“The regulations were lawful when they were promulgated by Parliament and they are lawful now in the light of the most uptodate evidence,” he said. “There is a significant moral angle which is embedded in the regulations which is about saving children from a lifetime of addiction, and children and adults from premature death and related suffering and disease.”

Deborah Arnott, the head of anti-smoking charity Ash, described the ruling as a “crushing defeat for the tobacco industry”.

But a spokesman for Dunhill manufacturer BAT claimed it was “by no means the final word on the lawfulness of plain packaging”, claiming the judgement “contains a number of fundamental errors of law”.

JTI, the other company that plans to appeal, said: “This decision sets a dangerous precedent for intellectual property rights and investment. Other consumer goods industries must now worry that their branding is under threat from political opportunism, rather than examining the evidence.”

Both Imperial and PMI said they were “disappointed” with the ruling.

It is a blow to the cigarette industry, which earlier this month also failed in an attempt to block new European Union rules that bans 10-packs and forces manufacturers to put health warnings on 65pc of packaging. The EU regulations also come into force tomorrow.

Debt rating agency Moody’s said tobacco companies should be able to mitigate plain packaging, but warned that measure “could reduce cigarette volumes and brand value over time, and there is also the risk that consumers could trade down to cheaper brands.”

Shares in BAT and Imperial, which are both listed in London, fell 1.9pc and 0.6pc respectively, although the latter was trading exdividend.

Case No: CO/2322/2015, CO/2323/2015, CO/2352/2015, CO/2601/2015 & CO/2706/2015

Download (PDF, 2.65MB)

UK court quashes tobacco firms’ packaging challenge

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-court-quashes-tobacco-firms-packaging-challenge/

LONDON — A High Court judge Thursday quashed the tobacco industry’s challenge to U.K. rules to require drab packaging stripped of logos and other branding on cigarettes and other products.

The 386-page judgment addressed all 17 grounds on which the tobacco industry challenged the U.K.’s rules, and sided with the government.

“I have found that the Secretary of State has adduced ample evidence to support the suitability and appropriateness of the Regulations,” the ruling reads.

The U.K. law is part of the country’s effort to implement the EU’s tobacco products directive, which comes into force on Friday.

The British standardized packaging regulations also take effect that day. Health warnings will have to cover 65 percent of the front and back of cigarette packaging. Anti-smoking advocates praised the decision.

“This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the government’s determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardized packaging,” said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH, an anti-smoking charity.

Cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco will be sold in plain brown packages, which have had all the attractive features and colors removed. This so-called plain packaging is not required by the EU, but member countries can go beyond the floor set by the directive.

However, new packets will not be on sale until stocks of existing cartons have been sold over the next year.

The U.K.’s biggest tobacco firm, JTI, and British American Tobacco, both said they will challenge the ruling.

“We will continue to challenge the legality of plain packaging. The fact remains that our branding has been eradicated and we maintain that this is unlawful,” Daniel Sciamma, U.K. managing director of JTI, said in a statement on the decision.

ASH supported the government’s defense and provided written evidence and gave oral testimony to the court.

According to Arnott, who was in the London court, the judgment rejected every argument the industry put forward.

It was “highly critical” of the industry’s use of commissioned expert evidence, its failure to disclose any internal assessments on how packaging design affects children and young people, and the effect of standardized packaging on sales, according to Arnott.

The case was the first challenge to plain packaging laws, coming into force in France and Ireland among other countries.

Tobacco giants to appeal High Court dismissal of plain packaging challenge

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-may-2016/tobacco-giants-to-appeal-high-court-dismissal-of-plain-packaging-challenge/

British American Tobacco (BAT) will seek leave to appeal a decision by the High Court rejecting its attempt to overturn UK legislation introducing plain packaging for tobacco products.

The ruling, handed down on Thursday (19 May), dismissed the judicial review brought by BAT and other global tobacco giants.

Plain packaging laws, which BAT said breached its intellectual property rights, will come into force on 20 May.

BAT revealed following the ruling it will seek leave to appeal the decision through its lawyers, Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF). JT International and Imperial Tobacco confirmed they will join BAT in the appeal, but Philip Morris – one of the lead claimants on the initial action – said it would not.

The judicial review brought by the four tobacco companies was dismissed on Thursday (19 May) in a 400-page ruling by Mr Justice Green.

Green J upheld the lawfulness of the new regulations and rejected the grounds of challenge in their entirety. He said the regulations were “proportionate”, both when they were first drafted by Parliament and in light of recent evidence following similar legislation in Australia.

The tobacco giants had sought to challenge the law on the grounds it was unlawful under international law, EU law and domestic common law.

Earlier this month the EU’s highest court similarly upheld a law that will standardise packaging and ban the advertising of e-cigarettes. Philip Morris and BAT challenged the proposed legislation and said the EU was overstepping its authority to direct laws in member states.

Ashurst, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, HSF and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom were instructed to bring the legal challenges in the UK. Leigh Day also appeared during the court proceedings last December for the intervener, Action on Smoking and Health.

In a statement, BAT said: “This decision by the English High Court is by no means the final word on the lawfulness of plain packaging. We believe that the judgment contains a number of fundamental errors of law and we are applying for leave to appeal the decision.

“The judgment, if left to stand, should also raise real concerns for many other legitimate businesses as it creates a worrying precedent whereby public policy concerns can ride roughshod over long established fundamental commercial rights.”

The legal line-up:$$$

For the first claimants, British American Tobacco

39 Essex’s Nigel Pleming QC, One Essex Court’s Geoffrey Hobbs QC and Philip Roberts and Brick Court Chambers’ David Scannell, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills partner Andrew Lidbetter

For the second claimants, Philip Morris

Brick Court’s Marie Demetriou QC and Daniel Piccinin, instructed by Skadden partner Karyl Nairn QC

For the third claimants, JT International

Brick Court’s David Anderson QC and Jennifer MacLeod, and One Essex Court’s Emma Himsworth QC, instructed by Freshfields partner Tom Snelling

For the fourth claimants, Imperial Tobacco Ltd

Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC, Brian Kennelly QC and Jason Pobjoy, and 8 New Square’s Lindsay Lane and Maxwell Keay, instructed by Ashurst

For the defendant, the Secretary of State for Health

Blackstone Chambers’ James Eadie QC and Catherine Callaghan, 8 New Square’s Martin Howe QC, Monckton Chambers’ Ian Rogers QC, Julianne Kerr Morrison and Nikolaus Grubeck, and 8 New Square’s Jaani Riordan, instructed by the Government Legal Department

For the intervener, Action on Smoking and Health

Monckton Chambers’ Peter Oliver and Ligia Osepciu, instructed by Leigh Day