Case against businessman in limbo

The case against a local businessman charged with falsely passing slippers and t-shirts as Puma products, remains in limbo after the prosecutor indicated he was not familiar with the probe into the alleged offence.

Leroy Fitzgerald Brathwaite, of 1st Avenue, Gooding Road, Station Hill, St Michael, is accused of committing three offences under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act on May 29 by falsely representing that 11 pairs of slippers and 13 t-shirts were of a particular standard, quality, style or model Puma.

He is also accused of exposing the goods for sale on the same day, intending to benefit from their sale, and exposing the items for sale without the consent of the owner of the Puma trademark.

The 53-year-old Brathwaite denied the charges and was released on $1,000 bail after the prosecutor, Sergeant Cameron Gibbons said he had no objection.

However, it was Gibbons’ response to an application by Brathwaite’s attorney Sian Lange that left the case in abeyance.

Lange asked Magistrate Kristie Cuffy-Sargeant to dismiss the charges against her client on the grounds that they were “improperly” brought before the court.

She argued that under the law only the Fair Trading Commission could bring such a charge against her client.

In response, Gibbons said he was not privy to the investigation, and requested that the matter be adjourned to confer with his office on whether the necessary authorities had been contacted in relation to the offences.

As such he will reply to Lange’s submission on November 28 when the parties return to court.

6 Responses to Case against businessman in limbo

  1. fedup November 22, 2017 at 8:47 am

    He cudda ask he niece fuh a piece uh change….

  2. 3rdsun November 22, 2017 at 8:47 am

    Rihanna snitch on uncle I Roy, wha lawd

  3. Sue Donym November 22, 2017 at 9:14 am

    A report elsewhere suggests that the charges were brought without following a specific procedure, not that only FTC could bring charges. Which is correct, BT?

  4. milli watt November 22, 2017 at 9:56 am

    his actions ain’t in contravention of the customs act also sec 100A….just asking

  5. Jim nicol November 22, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    Does a few t-shirts really damage puma?
    I don’t think so. This whole thing is just corporate bullying.

  6. Giselle bait November 26, 2017 at 3:07 am

    I am sure he is not the only person selling her fake items


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *