Wording error in illegal trading notices

Press, 7 May 1980, Page 11

Wording error in illegal trading notices

Many new minor prosecution notices alleging illegal Saturday trading may have to be issued by the Labour Department, after a conclusion by its legal advisers that the original informations were worded inappropriately. Five of the original notices have been withdrawn in the District Court at Auckland, after an application by Mr J. E. Long, counsel for the department, who told the Court that the wording was inappropriate. He said that new notices had been prepared but had not yet been served. The withdrawn charges, against five firms, were laid under section 11 (1) and section 23 (1) of the Shop Trading Hours Act,1977, and stated that "being the occupier of a shop (name and address given), did open that shop on a Saturday.”

The new notices lodged with the Court are still under the same sections but read “was the occupier of a shop, namely (name and address given), which shop was open in contravention of the Shop Trading Hours Act, 1977.” Mr A. Dumbleton, district solicitor for the Labour Department, said that the department’s legal advisers considered . the original notices were worded inappropriately and might be defective. It was decided a better wording could be substituted. He said that when those served with the original notice and, in due course, the new notice, appeared in Court, counsel for the department would request the withdrawal of the original information. Mr Dumbleton said the department might prosecute as many as 500 shopkeepers.