LONG TERM PROTEST OUTSIDE THE HIGH COURT Started 18 March 2009.

The protest outside the High Court (RCJ the Strand London) started 18 March 2009. If I remain there one day for each person killed by tobacco this century, I will be there for 2.74 million years!

The transcript refered to on the placard needs to be analysed! also please refer to previous blog Wednesday, 20 June 2007 pages 42 & 86 Injunction to Stop Onscreen Smoking

SAVE THE CHILDREN
BAN TOBACCO &
ACTORS SMOKING
1 Billion Deaths this century.
That’s 16 times the total war dead of 20th century!
Corrupt legislation: 2002 Tobacco Advertising & Promotion Act. (Excludes actors promoting smoking), & 2006 Health Act. (Health Minister exempts actors from
smoking ban) & UK.s top judge Sir Igor Judge thinks the enticement of children & premeditated killing of 1 billion people is a perfectly legal activity! (See transcript.)

Transcript.  JUDICIAL REVIEW

PROCEEDINGS: High Court (Royal Courts of Justice. The Strand London)

p.42 CO/8239/2006 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (DEFENDANT) 1 February 2007

1. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Mr Holmes, good morning. Thank you for coming. We have read your papers and we now would like to invite you to address us. 2. THE APPLICANT: In terms of weight of harm, this is probably the most important case that has ever been brought to these courts. It concerns the premeditated killing of one billion people this century via tobacco addiction, and the intentional enticement of children into that addiction. The root cause of this holocaust is political corruption, corporate crime and the enticement of children into addiction via tobacco advertising and promotion. 3. Actors smoking in films are the most potent form of promoting cigarette addiction, according to the 72 scientific papers in the bundle, tab 3 page 76 -- that is the thick one. Also on page 67 there is a list of 165 press articles regarding the same. 

One billion tobacco deaths this century -- that is one thousand million deaths -- is forecast by the World Health Organisation. That figure is so large it works out to be more than 15 times the total War dead of the entire 20th Century, excluding genocide, or one-sixth of the world's population. It works out to be approximately one death and one new recruit every three seconds, this holocaust being due to a consumer product sold in children's sweet shops. 4. As stated in the judgments of the European Court of Justice on 12th December 2006, six weeks ago or so, from Directive 89/552/EC and Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights: "(1) Article 13. All forms of television advertising for cigarette and other tobacco products shall be prohibited, including indirect advertising. (2) Surreptitious tobacco advertising is banned on television. (3) Tobacco sponsorship is banned on television. (4) Tobacco product placement is 

banned on television." 5. Also Article 10(2) of European Charter of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and (impart) information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article should not prevent the State from requiring the licensing of broadcasting television or cinema enterprises. Part 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since is carries with it duties and responsibilities." p.43 6. -- I have edited this down, your Honour -- "may be subject to such restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety or for the protection of health."

7. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we have the general thrust of the importance of what you say is involved in this. What we have to address is the Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act 2002, and see whether your case that the Attorney-General's failure to act can really be seen as some kind of breach of the statutory provisions. 8. THE APPLICANT: I am getting to that, sir. 9. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we have got there. That is where we need to get to, is it not? 10. THE APPLICANT: Well, as stated in the grounds and the facts relied on in the main bundle, that wasn't the only part. That was part of the claim. The claim also mentions "Directives on Television Without Frontiers". That was in the Pre-Action Protocols and it is in the grounds and the statements of facts relied on, and it's also in the bundle as well. So basically I have switched routes. 11. SIR IGOR JUDGE: But in the end, what you are seeking is an order that the Attorney- General should act in accordance with the law; is it not? That is what I think you are 

saying. You are saying, "Here is the law; it is being broken and the Attorney-General is doing nothing about it and he is responsible as the law officer for seeing that the law is enforced". 12. THE APPLICANT: That is part of it, your Honour. The main concern is the massive harm that's being done. 13. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, that is why you are bringing the proceedings. We understand that. But the question whether the Attorney-General is or is not in breach of his duty is actually a pure question of law. 14. THE APPLICANT: That is placed --- OMISSION TRANSCRRIPT PROBLEM? 15. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Your point is well understood. Other people share it; others do not. But we are not here just dealing with your opinion about the issue. We 

have to address what the legal structure is that enables you to say the Attorney-General has failed in his duty as Attorney-General and upholder of the law. 16. THE APPLICANT: Well, he's failed under Article 10(2) of the European Charter of Human Rights, and he's failed under Directive 89/552/EC. 17. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Wait a minute --- OMISSION? TRANSCRIPT PROBLEM? 18. THE APPLICANT: Sorry, which incorporates -- the main Directive is the other -- I have forgotten the name of it. 19. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Fifty-five? 20. THE APPLICANT: Two thousand ... 21. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I may be wrong about this, but was it not the Directive which eventually produced our Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act 2002? 22. THE APPLICANT: No, that was annulled. 23. SIR IGOR JUDGE: That is a no point, right. P.44 24. 

THE APPLICANT: No, 98/43 was annulled by the European Court of Justice. Just bear with me a second. (Pause) Yes, your Honour, it is Directive 89/552/EC. 25. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you. 26. THE APPLICANT: I have done the ECHR and I have done 89/552. 27. SIR IGOR JUDGE: And in your written papers you addressed what you describe as the response of Mr Justice Calvert-Smith's observations. 28. THE APPLICANT: Yes. 29. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think that may be the term of what we have to consider today. 30. THE APPLICANT: I do not agree, your Honour. As I've said -- as I'm about to say, in the main bundle I have serious doubts about the 2002 Tobacco Advertising Act. 31. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, we can only apply an Act. 

Judges cannot sit under a palm tree and say, "We think it would be a good thing for the law to do something". 32. THE APPLICANT: All this will become clear if you let me continue. 33. SIR IGOR JUDGE: There is a limited amount of time you have, and to let you go on things which may not help you may not be of assistance to you. I think if you focus on the issue, which is, why the Attorney-General should be ordered to take the process that you want us to order him to take. That is where we can give you a remedy if we can give you a remedy at all; and if you want to tell us how serious this is that is up to you, but you are using up time. 34. THE APPLICANT: Well ... 35. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Now it is up to you, Mr Holmes. 36. THE APPLICANT: Basically, actors smoking in films is the most potent form of tobacco advertising there is; and under 

Directive 89/552EC it is quite clear under Article 13 all forms of television advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products shall be prohibited. Also actors smoking is a form of product placement. The only question is: is payment involved? That's the gray area. Everybody suspects there is payment, but the actual method of payment is unclear. Personally, I suspect the method of payment is by co-production agreements, whereby third parties can inject money and remain anonymous; so that is a perfect route for the cigarette companies to finance cigarette promotions secretly. But this is conjecture, your Honour. Because the logic is that the film industry are not going to do for free what previously they were being paid for, so there is 

something in it for them. And also it's been said that these co- production agreements is a method of money laundering. That is a very gray area. I am not a solicitor, and I don't have
the facilities to research this in the way it's necessary. 37. SIR IGOR JUDGE: We have no evidence, do we, that there is money laundering involved in the production of films, and actors and actresses smoking? 38. THE APPLICANT: I don't have any. 39. SIR IGOR JUDGE: At the moment there is no evidence before us. 40. THE APPLICANT: Is there any point in me going through the history of the – another main point is the Government's manifesto promise. They promised to ban tobacco advertising and promotion within the first few weeks of getting into office. There were all sorts of jiggery- pokery going on, and ten years down the road we are 

now in a worse position than when they first made their promise, because today the potency of the tobacco promotions is more potent p.45 and also it's increased in volume. Sky Television put out 450 films a week; 80 per cent are promoting cigarettes. The owner of Sky Television, Rupert Murdoch, is a director of Phillip Morris, and Rupert Murdoch has done a deal with Tony Blair. 41. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Mr Holmes, you may be right, you may be wrong; and it is far be it from us to be able to comment one way or another. That is not actually going to help you or us. You may have a perfectly legitimate point, but that is a matter to be pursued in the political arena. 42. THE APPLICANT: Well, the Attorney-General, his definition is "defender of the public interests". Now, it can't be in the public interest for the Attorney-General not to take action to protect the nation's children -- in fact the world's children. Your concern is that he 

should take action by 43. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: prosecuting under this Act; is it not? 44. THE APPLICANT: No, my concern is -- what I would presume the correct method would be, if there is some question about what I am saying to take a precautionary step and take out injunction to stop actors smoking in films. If it turns out all the scientific evidence is incorrect - - which is most unlikely -- then there is no harm done because the injunction would not be detrimental to the film industry. 45. SIR IGOR JUDGE: But in order to do that he would have to present a case that smoking in films -- the depiction of actors smoking in films is unlawful, would he not? And it can only be unlawful under this Act, as the law of this country is at the moment. 46. THE APPLICANT: Which Act? 47. SIR IGOR JUDGE: The 2002 Act. 48. THE 

APPLICANT: No, I thought they got round that, your Honour -- we are now on to Directive 89/552, and also the European Human Rights Law Article 10(2). 49. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I do not think you have got round it. There is the Act which makes it an offence. The Directive does not make it an offence, and Article 10 does not make it an offence. 50. THE APPLICANT: And the Directives make it an offence. 51. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I do not think so. The Directive is a Directive. 52. THE APPLICANT: Let me move on a little bit. 53. SIR IGOR JUDGE: We understand your point. What we are trying to do is to get at whether there is in truth, in law -- this is all we can apply -- the remedy that you are seeking. That is what we are after. If you can find it, that is one thing; but if you cannot find it, you cannot. 54. THE APPLICANT: The 

objective pursued by the Government was the protection of children. They identified the problem as being the promotion and advertising of tobacco; so the objective pursued was to ban tobacco advertising and promotion. That hasn't happened. So the problem lies with the legal interpretation of the Government's direction or order. Their order was to protect people, and especially children. If you turn to Tab 8 there are ministers' views -- that is in the big bundle. Several ministers have stated that the idea is to protect people and children from tobacco advertising and promotion. P.46 55. Now if the Acts have failed to produce the goods, then basically the wool is being pulled the over the public's eyes, because we expected that the Government was going to protect children from tobacco persuasions in the form of advertising 

and promotion, of which actors smoking is the most potent because it is surreptitious product placement and people's defences are turned off. When you are looking at an ordinary advert, certain defences are in play because you are aware that somebody is trying to sell something and somebody is trying to persuade you, but if these persuasions are in films and are applied surreptitiously, defences are turned off, which makes them extremely potent. It is a complicated area. Advertising and the psychology of advertising is a complicated area, but it obviously works, otherwise they wouldn't do it. And what I'm saying is obviously correct because there's laws against it. 56. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Yes. 57. THE APPLICANT: Where do we go from there? 58. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, I am still not sure that -- I mean we have what you 

say in writing, but I think for the purposes of the oral argument, we got what you say about why Mr Justice Calvert-Smith was wrong. Do you want to develop any points in relation to that? We have your written response. 59. THE APPLICANT: In the speech that I prepared I refer to my remarks which were in the grounds, actually, that I felt -- I think I said that ... 60. SIR IGOR JUDGE: I think we would be most helped if we look at your -- we have read through your papers. If we come to your response to Mr Justice Calvert-Smith on our page 3, it is your banner headline to it, it is in the middle of the page in the document which says "Grounds for Renewing the Application". 61. THE APPLICANT: The thick bundle? 62. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, the small bundle. You have "Grounds for Renewing the Application", just have a look at what I am looking at, Mr Holmes. That document, "Grounds for Renewing the Application", then you 

have "Supporting Documents" and you begin: "One billion tobacco deaths ..." and then we turn at page 1 at the bottom, we have read through your preamble, we then go to page 3, which is "Response to Mr Justice Calvert-Smith". (Adjourned, to deal with another case). 63. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Sorry about that, Mr Holmes. 64. THE APPLICANT: In my original bundle, your Honour, on page 9, I have commented that ... 65. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Is that page 9 of the first tab? 66. THE APPLICANT: Page 9, tab 1. Under the heading, "The 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act". I will just read it: "The 2002 Tobacco Advertising and promotion Act was instigated to protect children from enticement into tobacco addiction. The repeated phrase and general public perception of the Act is that anything done which has the purpose or effect of promoting tobacco products is prohibited, this being a proportionate 

remedial response to the problem. Either this is the case or the 2002 Act is in effect a licence to poison children by the film industry, which is now happening in a very big way. Eighty per cent of top promotional films now promote smoking." And so on so forth. I have reservations about the evidence which since I wrote this have increased, because -- p.47 67. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: What I think you are saying is that the Act is not wide enough to encompass this activity as being an advertisement, because --- 68. THE APPLICANT: Worse that than, your Honour -- it is worse than that. 69. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Sorry, just let me explain what I am saying to you. Something is contrary to this Act if it is an advertisement, and the problem is --- 70. THE APPLICANT: Or a promotion. 71. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Well, the Act does not say "promotion", in that --- 72. THE APPLICANT: It's called the "Tobacco 

Advertising and Promotion Act". 73. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: But the problem is that the depiction of an actor smoking in a film, unless it is done for the benefit of the tobacco industry, particularly if it was paid for by them, does not amount to an advertisement within the Act; and so it cannot be stopped under this Act. Now you say the problem is that the Act does not go as far as it should have gone. 74. THE APPLICANT: It's not doing the job. 75. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: But that is the Act. 76. THE APPLICANT: It's not doing the job. And also it's worse than what your Honour says,because Directive 98/43/EC, which was annulled by the European Court of Justice, is evidence that cigarette companies actually attempted to replace that Act by tobacco industry authored legislation, and there has been other cases of 

this sort of behaviour by the tobacco industry. During the global tobacco treaty the World Health Organisation had similar problems with the cigarette companies trying to corrupt delegates and corrupt legislation. And it now appears, because of the bizarre route of the 2002 Act and the bizarre contents of the Act, that this may well be the case with this Act as well - it may have been got at by the cigarette companies, because if you read it it doesn't make sense. There is one particular phrase -- if I could just put my finger on it ...77. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: In the Act itself? 78. THE APPLICANT: In the Act -- well, let me just read it. Now, this is supposed to be an Act to protect children; it is called the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Act, and the main phrase is, "Anything done which has the purpose or effect of 

promoting tobacco products is prohibited". Now, it states --- 79. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: No, it does not say that. It says that tobacco advertisement means an advertisement --- 80. THE APPLICANT: I am thinking about section 10, your Honour. If you refer to section 10 of the Act, I think it says there “under sponsorship". 81. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: (Pause) "Sponsorship agreements", yes. 82. THE APPLICANT: "Prohibition of sponsorship", section 10. 83. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Yes. 84. THE APPLICANT: "A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a P.48 tobacco product..." Can I read one sentence? 85. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: Yes, of course. 86. THE APPLICANT: "There is no intention to catch the private individual who uses his own money to sponsor an event or activity so as to 

promote smoking". Now this is the 2002 Tobacco Act; It is saying the exact opposite of what the Act is supposed to be all about. There is no intention to catch a private individual who uses his own money to sponsor an event or activity so as to promote smoking. It sounds as if this individual is injecting money into a co- production agreement. Which was some of the points I was going to make in my prepared speech. 87. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Fine. 88. THE APPLICANT: Where do we go now? 89. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Well, we have read your papers. We have closely read your grounds for renewing the application, which set out your case in some considerable detail. Where we go from now is, if there is anything further fresh that you want to draw to our attention we will of course listen to it, otherwise we shall retire and consider what to do with your application. 90. THE APPLICANT: Common sense would dictate, your Honour, even if 

the scientists are wrong and I am wrong, but there is a little bit of doubt, in order to prevent this holocaust, this massive rate of death, the responsible and sensible action would be to, as a precautionary measure, take out an injunction to stop actors smoking, because it would not result in any harm to the film industry. In fact, if anything, they would benefit, because most people when watching a film see -- when they see an actor smoking it is a distraction from the storyline. It would not take anything away from the film industry, so -- but if they did this, it could well prevent this one billion death holocaust this century, so if they do not do it there are serious questions. And in the prepared speech at the end, I say if as a precautionary measure: 

the injunction is granted and actors did not smoke any more and later it was found that all the scientific papers were wrong, then no harm has been done. On the other hand, if the injunction is not granted and the scientific papers are correct, then the authorities become a party to a crime against humanity, and a crime against children. This is an extremely serious situation, your Honour. 91. Also, the Attorney-General -- the Attorney-General gave a donation to Tony Blair, he received a Lordship from Tony Blair, he then received a top job from Tony Blair as Attorney- General. Therefore his impartiality is in question. The same applies to the Honourable Calvert- Smith who knows David Mills' sister-in-law, who is the defendant's husband. There is a conflict of interest. 92. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you, Mr Holmes, we will adjourn for a moment. You sit down and wait. 93. THE APPLICANT: The lady I was referring to is Barbara Mills, she was the head of the DPP and Serious Fraud Office. 1. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Thank you.

JUDGEMENT

MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: The claimant in this case, Mr Stewart Holmes, renews his application for permission to apply for judicial review after refusal on paper by the single judge. 2. Mr Holmes is a sincere and committed anti-smoking campaigner. He believes that a major contributory factor to the continued habit of tobacco smoking, and particularly of young people taking up and continuing the habit, is the depiction of smoking in films and the like. He supports that claim in various ways, and is by no means alone in holding his very strong views. He relies on some research, including American research conducted by a Professor Glantz who campaigns under the banner "Smoke Free Movies". He heads much of his correspondence and paperwork with the striking assertion in bold typeface "Actors Smoking will cause 1 billion 

deaths this century", and he describes this state of affairs as causing a "holocaust". 3. Mr Holmes relies on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2000, on a provision of the European Convention of Human Rights and on a European Community Directive. 4. The 2000 Act, in essence and with very minor reservations, bans tobacco advertising. The Act creates a number of offences committed by those who are in breach of the prohibition. Mr Holmes seeks judicial review of the refusal of Her Majesty's Attorney-General to instituteprosecutions under this Act of those who produce films in which actors are depicted smoking, or otherwise to act so as to prevent such depiction in films. He also seeks judicial review against the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for its failure to respond to his correspondence to that department on this topic, and also of the failure of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to take 

steps by way of prosecution to enforce the law. 5. The Act provides under the heading "Meaning of 'tobacco advertisement' and 'tobacco product'" as follows: "In this Act - "tobacco advertisement" means an advertisement - (a) whose purpose is to promote a tobacco product, or (b) whose effect is to do so, and 'tobacco product' means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed." By section 2, headed "Prohibition of tobacco advertising", it is provided: "(1) A person who in the course of a business publishes a tobacco advertisement, or causes one to be published, in the United Kingdom is guilty of an offence. (2) A person who in the course of a business prints, devises or distributes in the United Kingdom a tobacco advertisement which is published in the United 

Kingdom, or causes such a tobacco advertisement to be so printed, devised or distributed, is guilty of an offence. (3) Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission." 6. Mr Holmes relies also on the provisions of section 10 of the Act, headed "Prohibition of sponsorship": P.87. 2 "A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence ..." - and "sponsorship agreement" is defined in subsection (2) of that section, including the reference to a party making a contribution in money or other form. 7. Reference can also be made to section 12, which provides that the Act does not apply to television programmes; and also to the enforcement provisions contained in section 13, which prescribes that in England 

and Wales the enforcement authority is a weights and measures authority; but that by subsection (3) the appropriate minister, who is the Secretary of State for Health, may discharge that function himself. 8. It seems to me that there are a number of obstacles in the path of Mr Holmes in seeking judicial review. The first -- which I regard as an obstacle to any reliance on the Act -- is that I do not consider it arguable that the depiction of an actor smoking a cigarette or a cigar in a film constitutes a tobacco advertisement. The term "tobacco advertisement", is defined as I have indicated in section 1 of the Act. But the word "advertisement", is not itself defined in the Act. Mr Holmes has helpfully included in his bundle the explanatory notes issued together with the Act. They are not part of the Act itself but they do give some assistance in 

respect of the meaning of the Act and in dealing with the definition section of "tobacco advertisement". It reads as follows: "The Act defines 'tobacco advertisement' as an advertisement whose purpose or whose effect is to promote a tobacco product. The term 'advertisement' is not defined and bears its natural meaning. The Act covers direct advertising (for example posters, billboards and press advertising) and other forms of promotion, such a direct marketing. It also covers so-called brandsharing" - and the note sets that out. 9. The Act also covers media other than paper, eg electronic communication such as the internet and video. It does not cover television and radio, which were already subject to regulations under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 or other means. Mr Holmes in his extensive researches on this topic has shown us the Draft Directive of the European Parliament and Council of 

Europe called the TVWF Directive, TVWF being the acronym for Television Without Frontiers. This Draft Directive itself contains a number of definitions and, in relation to this topic, it provides as follows, bearing in mind this is a Draft Directive: "'television advertising' means any form of announcement broadcast whether in return for payment or for similar consideration or broadcast for self-promotional purposes by public or private undertaking in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations, in return for payment." 11. Mr Holmes also refers to "surreptitious advertising", which is defined in the Directive in this way: "'surreptitious advertising' means the representation in words or pictures of goods, 

services, the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a provider of services in programmes when such representation is intended by the broadcaster to serve advertising and might mislead the public as to its nature. Such representation is considered to be intentional in particular if it is done in return for payment or for similar considerations." 12. Mr Holmes relies also on the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 10, which is the freedom of expression article; and he relies in particular on paragraph 2 of Article 10. P.88. However, in my judgment, that article cannot impose a duty on the Attorney-General. What Article 10(2) does is it sets out the necessary reservation or modification of what would otherwise be the blanket human rights provision of 10(1); it cannot create an obligation on the 

Attorney-General. Nor, in my judgment, can the European Community Directive 89/552, to which Mr Holmes has extensively relied. 13. The summary grounds of defence submitted by the first and second defendants, through the Treasury Solicitor, raises the definition of the term "advertisement", with which I have already dealt. It takes a number of other points, namely: that the enforcement authority is not the Attorney-General but the weights and measures authority; that in any event the Attorney- General has a discretion in relation to the steps he should take in the public interest to enforce the law; that there is no decision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (the second defendant) to which the claim for judicial review can attach; and that Mr Holmes, as a member of the public -- albeit one who takes a 

very close and detailed interest in the subject -- does not have any specific standing to bring a claim for judicial review. 14. In my judgment, quite apart from the advertisement issue, each of those points constitutes an obstacle which Mr Holmes, as a matter of law, however sincere and committed he is to the cause which he seeks to promote, cannot hope to surmount. In my judgment, neither is there a ground for any judicial review of the refusal of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to take action. There is, in fact, no discernible reason that I can see for naming him in particular, in relation to a matter which is of national rather than merely London dimensions. 15. The single judge, in refusing permission to proceed, referred to the 

various sections of the 2000 Act which create offences or classes of offender, and went on: "1. ... None are concerned with 'promotion' or television or radio programmes. They concern advertisements, coupons, sponsorship, breaches of regulations concerning emblems etc, obstructing officers and the liability of company directors etc. 2. The mere showing of a film in which a person is smoking cannot amount to advertising a tobacco product as defined in Sections 1 & 2. 3. The appropriate body to take action if criminal breaches of the Act are suspected is a weights and measures authority. 4. In any event the Attorney-General has a discretion whether to intervene to injunct persons who have declared an intention to commit a crime. The courts will not interfere with that discretion." In my judgment the single judge 

formed a correct judgment and I find no grounds in the voluminous material subsequently submitted and orally argued before us to indicate that he was wrong. 16. I would therefore refuse the renewed application. SIR IGOR JUDGE: In my judgment, Mr Holmes' passionate concern for what his submissions suggest are the desperate consequences of smoking is manifest. However, for the reasons given by my Lord the legal remedy he is seeking is not available. In truth, if Mr Holmes is to succeed with his crusade against the evils of smoking, and in particular to achieve a prohibition against the depiction of smoking in films, he and those who agree with him must capture hearts and minds to the extent that the democratic process results in legislation which will achieve their objective. To date it has not. 18. Accordingly, I 

agree with my Lord that this renewed application must be refused. P.89. 19. Thank you Mr Holmes, for your assistance. 20. THE APPLICANT: Am I allowed to appeal? 21. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, I am afraid this, so far as the legal system is concerned, is the end of the road. 22. THE APPLICANT: Can I not take it to the Court of Appeal? 23. SIR IGOR JUDGE: No, we have refused you leave to make the application, so I think that really is the end of the road. 24. THE APPLICANT: I am not happy, because you stopped me from saying what I was going to say; but I have made a copy of the speech which I would like to give you for your perusal. 25. SIR IGOR JUDGE: Very well, thank you.