Sentencing — engaging in conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of goods — meat processing — ham — imported goods — origins of goods — misleading labels on package — misleading illustrations on package — “Made in New Zealand” brand — Commerce Commission v L D Nathan & Co Ltd [1990] 2 NZLR 160 — Budget Loans Ltd v Commerce Commission [2018] NZHC 3442 — Marcol Manufacturers Ltd v The Commerce Commission HC Christchurch, AP 166/89, 18 December 1990, Tipping J — Commerce Commission v Topline International Ltd [2017] NZDC 9221 — Commerce Commission v New Zealand Nutritionals (2004) Ltd [2016] NZHC 832 — Commerce Commission v Honey New Zealand (International) Ltd, DC Auckland, CRN-2009-004-514773-775, 2 May 2011 — Commerce Commission v Nature Care Products, DC Auckland, CRI-2009-004-18045, 4 May 2010 — Premium Alpaca Ltd v Commerce Commission [2014] NZHC 1836 — Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 1A, 10, 13 & 40(2) — Sentencing Act 2002, s 84. The defendant appeared for sentence on three charges of engaging in conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of goods. It was a meat-processing company that produced hams. A small amount of the meat used to make the hams was sourced in New Zealand, but most (more than 86 per cent) was imported. The hams were sold in packaging that included statements that the hams were "produced in New Zealand" and "made in the country", and also illustrations of rural scenery. The packages included no indications that the defendant used imported meat. As the result of a Commerce Commission investigation, the defendant admitted the origin of the meat and explained that its claims were intended to emphasise that it was a rural, locally-owned business. The Court considered that the wording on the packages created an objective impression that the hams were made from New Zealand-reared pork, and was therefore misleading. However given the role of an independent marketing company in creating the packaging and the defendant's 40 years of operating with no prior convictions, the Court found that the defendant's conduct was not deliberate, but was highly careless. Further, by creating the impression that the hams were from New Zealand-reared pork, the defendant had likely influenced consumers' purchasing decisions, gained an unfair advantage over its competitors, and undermined the value of the "Made in New Zealand" brand. The Court found that the offending fell within the mid-range of seriousness, and set a start point for fine $300,000. The defendant earned reductions for cooperation with the Commerce Commission investigation, remorse, remedial steps (designing new packaging with more accurate wording), good character, and guilty plea. The final fine was $180,000. Judgment Date: 30 July 2019.