Friday, 3 December 2010

Smoking ban compared with Third Reich: Chris Carter

Chris Carter's latest court appearance is reported here, and here, with some of the background here. Mr Carter believes that the law was passed using inaccurate and misleading information and has been seeking a judicial review to correct matters. Last year he was refused leave to cite three NI government ministers as witnesses and earlier this year his application for a judicial review was refused. He was then granted leave to challenge the law again before different judges.

The initial offence, smoking in North Downs Borough Council offices, drew a fine of  £1,250: he narrowly escaped prison last year after stating that he would not pay. His purpose was to challenge the law by bringing it to a judicial review. No decision was reached in court yesterday.

He has used a photograph in the court of a cancer patient allegedly made to smoke outdoors. Part of his case hinges on the inhumane treatment of smokers.

A four-figure fine for lighting up in an office is an absurd outcome. Prison for non-payment is equally absurd. There are real problems with real crime on the streets and such a fine is justified only by the perception that Mr Carter was imperilling the lives of North Downs council officers by lighting up. Of course, his judicial review should be heard, because his evidence will show how unlikely this is.

He will be permitted an appeal if the current judgement goes against him.


Anonymous said...

In reponse to some of the comments in that paper I would like to say:-
'cr'- I am a recipient of chemo/radiotherapy in exactly the locations you nominate, I don't smoke and I certainly don't question others rights to smoke for if they choose to then that is their perogative! It is interesting that on my cancer ward many of the smokers take their 'mobile fluid stands' outside to have a cigarette and when asked why, the answer is simple; it appears they ENJOY smoking! Bizarrely, a few of the non smoking 'inmates' also go out with the smokers 'for a breath of fresh air'.
' tgit23'-you are absolutely correct, this is exactly the same as Hitler declaring that Jews were vermin and extinction was the only route. It is disgraceful that a democratic country should be held to ransom by health lobby's to such an extent that discrimination against 22%-25% of its population occurs. Politicians should hang their heads in shame!
'seamus'- you really ought to open your mind and enlighten yourself to the truth! You speak as a fellow non smoker, but worse, a non smoker indoctrinated with all the brainwashing that has occurred over the past 35 years from ASH et al. Cigarette smoke does not kill you, it may not assist respiratory diseases but it will not kill you! Which do you think is more toxic Seamus, a cigarette or everyday traffic fumes? You don't quibble about the latter because it is accepted that you NEED such yet traffic fumes are far more lethal to the human body-and that's "blown all over you", me and everybody else everyday!
Now let's look at the economical side of smoke bans-S.Ireland will do nicely!
Government brings in smoking ban - government screaming about loss of important tobacco tax revenue: their own fault!
Government brings in smoking ban - government screaming about increasing smuggling rates: their own fault!
Government brings in smoking ban to reduce smoker prevalence - smoking rates go up: their own fault!
Government brings in smoking ban - businesses close because of and government is concerned about loss of revenue from once viable businesses: thier own fault!
No matter which way you look at smoking bans, they are disastrous for any countries economy.

JJ said...

It would be nice just for a change for judges to try and understand the iniquity of this cruel and spiteful legislation.

I of course like many others wish him well...and should he be granted his judicial review then we could see all kinds of things happening.

I have to say that I'm reminded of Lord Nimmo's judgement in the Mc Tear case brought against Imperial Tobacco back in 2005. It is of particular relevance with regard to epidemiology.

'In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and
the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the
likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are
possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that
lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any
individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably
would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.17.

The case against Imperial Tobacco failed...this judge simply exercised his common sense.

I hope Chris Carter will use this as a precedent.