I must point out at this stage that I have had no formal legal training, but this document is reasonably easy to read, and I wanted to be crystal clear about the ways in which mediums, psychics, etc., can now be prosecuted for cheating the public.
Part 2 – Prohibitions sets out what is considered unfair commercial practice, and what a trader cannot do without falling foul of the law.
A trader may not:
Mislead the consumer:
- by using false information,
- being untruthful, or
- by making a presentation which is likely to deceive the average consumer,
It is also misleading if the trader “provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely.”
The final group of misleading actions is covered by Schedule 1. These include:
- Falsely claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct;
- Falsely claiming that a code of conduct is endorsed by a public or other body;
- Falsely claiming to be approved, endorsed, or authorised by a public or private body;
- Falsely claiming to be able to cure illnesses;
- Promoting goods or services in the media using editorial content paid for by the trader, if this is not made clear.
Proceedings can be taken against a trader up to three years from the date of the offence, and anyone found guilty of an offence under the regulations could be fined up to £ 5,000.00 on conviction in the Magistrates' Court, but in addition there could be a prison sentence of up to two years if convicted in the Crown Court.
So what defence is there for a trader accused under the regulations? Well, they would have to prove that they committed the offence because of:
- a mistake
- information supplied by another person
- something beyond their control
However, any medium attempting to prove to the court that their incorrect information was supplied by the spirit of a dead person, and therefore beyond their control, is likely to get very short shrift indeed!
Those who advertise products and services on behalf of traders have a defence if they can prove they “did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence” under the regulations.Obviously, such a defence will not be available when there is evidence that warnings had been given to the effect that its publication would amount to an offence.
In my next blog entry I will be looking more closely at the Spiritual Workers' Association’s plans for a code of conduct, and whether they will be able to use it to beat the legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment