Couple fined for bogus anti-terror kit claims

A Bay couple who touted an anti-terrorist protection kit for such threats as anthrax, botulism and smallpox and claimed they could cure bird flu, the Sars virus and other conditions have been fined $11,450 for making false or misleading claims.
Judge Thomas Ingram warned Ingrid and John Godwin, who own and run Healing World, a homeopathic clinic in 16th Ave, that any repeat of their criminal conduct would see them face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
In Tauranga District Court yesterday, the Godwins were sentenced on 19 charges of making false or misleading representations on a website and in a newspaper during a three-year period between April 2003 and April 2006.
A defended hearing expected to last five days began on Monday, but on Tuesday afternoon the couple changed their pleas and 24 charges were subsequently withdrawn.
As well as being fined, the Godwin must pay $1950 in court costs and $10,000 in prosecution costs.
The charges stem from the Godwins having advertised homeopathic "remedies" for the Sars virus, bird flu, and herpes. They also offered an anti-terrorist protection kit for such threats as anthrax, botulism and smallpox, for which there is no known cure.
The Godwins were also prosecuted for misleading the public about their qualifications. Although Mrs Godwin is listed on the nursing register, she has not held an annual practising certificate for more than a decade.
Mr Godwin claimed that he was endorsed by the NZ Institute of Isopathic Medicine Inc, an organisation he created, which was struck off the Companies Office register in 2004. Mr Godwin holds no qualifications of any kind.
Commerce Commission prosecutor Alysha McClintock told Judge Ingram that while it was accepted the couple had not deliberately set out to deceive the public, their actions had been reckless.
Ms McClintock said the commission sought a fine of at least $20,000-$25,000 and costs of the prosecution, although what was being claimed - just over $16,000 - was "only a drop in the ocean".
But the Godwins' lawyer, John Dorbu, argued that the fine being sought was much too high given that his clients' actions were careless rather than reckless; they honestly believed the claims for their products.
Mr Dorbu also argued it would be fair to discharge the Godwins without conviction given that the offences were at the lower end of the scale, and there was no evidence of sales resulting from the advertising.
Mr Godwin said possibly two customers took up the offer, but that was not due to the advertising.
Mr Dorbu also sought name suppression, saying the impact of a criminal conviction would outweigh the gravity of their offending.
The Godwins may face disciplinary action by the NZ Charter of Health Practitioners Inc, a voluntary charter to which they belong - and adverse publicity was likely to have significant impact on their business.
Judge Ingram said he accepted the Godwins had not set out to deliberately deceive the public.
However, while overall the offences were not at the most serious end of the offending scale given no one was "sucked in", it was no trivial matter, the judge said, and convictions were warranted.
Mr Godwin and his wife told the Bay of Plenty Times they were "quite disappointed" about the outcome of the hearing and would have liked to present further evidence about their products, but accepted the judge's ruling.