Worthing supermarket director wanted for arrest after court no-show

Rebwar Hadi Mahmoud – a director of Landy Supermarket Ltd in Rowlands Road – is ‘warrant for arrest without bail’, according to a document released by Surrey and Sussex Magistrates Court.

The company has been charged with 29 offences – including allegedly supplying tobacco products for smoking, which did not carry a combined health warning, and being ‘knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of any duty chargeable on goods’.

The court document stated: "The defendant is the company but Mr Rebwar Mahmood is one of the directors of the company.

"Defendant failed to attend [Worthing Magistrates’] court. Defendant is also prosecuted in his individual name with similar matters."

Sussex Police said anyone with information about the whereabouts of Rebwar Mahmoud is asked to ‘report it to online or by calling 101’.

A spokesperson for West Sussex County Council said: “We can confirm that a warrant of arrest without bail has been issued by Worthing Magistrates Court for Mr Rebwar Hadi Mahmoud, a director of Landy Supermarket Ltd, after he failed to appear in court [on Monday, January 6].”

There are 24 charges, which relate to the date of October 18, 2023. Two further alleged offences took place on September 22, 2023.

There are also three alleged offences in 2024 – one on February 29 and two on May 1.

The offences listed on the court document are:

– Supplied a tobacco product for smoking, namely two packets of 20 Marlboro Gold cigarettes, the unit pack of which did not carry a combined health warning as required by regulation 5 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that they did not carry a general warning in the form of the text: ‘Smoking kills – quit now’; and an information message consisting of the text: ‘Tobacco smoke contains over 70 substances known to cause cancer’.

– With a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods, namely one apple branded charger, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, namely the Apple sign, with a view to you or another selling the said goods. Contrary to section 92(1)(c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

– With a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods, namely 2 x packets (containing 20 cigarette sticks in each packet) of Benson and Hedges cigarettes, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, namely the words ‘Benson and Hedges’, with a view to you or another selling the said goods. Contrary to section 92(1)(c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

– Being a producer who was required to submit a notification under regulation 31(1) of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of electronic cigarettes, supplied them prior to the requirements of regulation 35 having been satisfied, in that did supply (Regulation 3 (2) (c) includes expose or possess for sale) electronic cigarettes, namely Red Apple Ice those goods not complying with Reg 35 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of notification to the MHRA.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine containing liquid within the disposable electronic cigarette was in a volume exceeding 2 millilitres.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine delivery per dose was not indicated on the label.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine-containing liquid which presented for retail sale in an electronic cigarette containing nicotine in excess of 20 milligrams per millilitre.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the label not containing instructions for use.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the label not containing contact details of the producer.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine containing liquid within the disposable electronic cigarette was in a volume exceeding 2 millilitres.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine delivery per dose was not indicated on the label.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the batch number not indicated on the packet.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the label not containing instructions for use.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that it contained nicotine in excess of 20 milligrams per millilitre.

– Being a producer who was required to submit a notification under regulation 31(1) of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of electronic cigarettes, supplied them prior to the requirements of regulation 35 having been satisfied, in that those goods not complying with Regulation 35 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of notification to the MHRA.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the label not containing instructions for use.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine delivery per dose was not indicated on the label.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the batch number not indicated on the packet.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the health warning that does not cover 30% of the area of each of those surfaces of the packet when closed.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 37 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that of the labelling requirement to carry a health warning consisting of the text: ‘This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance’.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that the nicotine containing liquid within the disposable electronic cigarette was in a volume exceeding 2 millilitres.

– Supplied electronic cigarettes which did not comply with regulation 36 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that it contained nicotine in excess of 20 milligrams per millilitre.

– Being a producer who was required to submit a notification under regulation 31(1) of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of electronic cigarettes, supplied them prior to the requirements of regulation 35 having been satisfied, in that namely a VNSN Quake 10000 Puff Vape Gummy Bear Flavour (exhibit EL/LS/07/EL1) not complying with Regulation 35 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 in respect of notification to the MHRA.

– With a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods, namely two 50g pouches of Amber Leaf hand rolling tobacco, which bore, or the packaging with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods, namely two 50g pouches of Amber Leaf hand rolling tobacco, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, namely the words ‘Amber Leaf’, with a view to you or another selling the said goods. Contrary to section 92(1)(c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

– With a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods, namely two packets of 20 Richmond King size cigarettes, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, namely the word ‘Richmond’, with a view to you or another selling the said goods. Contrary to section 92(1)(c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

– Supplied a tobacco product for smoking, namely two packets of 20 Marlboro cigarettes, the unit pack of which did not carry a combined

health warning as required by regulation 5 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that did not carry a combined health warning consisting of the relevant smoking cessation information ‘Get help to stop smoking at www.nhs.uk/quit’, and supply a GB tobacco product with one of the text warnings with a corresponding colour photograph.

– With a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, applied a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, namely the word ‘Richmond’, to goods or their packaging, namely namely two packets of 20 Richmond cigarettes. Contrary to section 92(1)(a) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

– Supplied a tobacco product for smoking, namely twenty packets of 20 ESSE change cigarettes, the unit pack of which did not carry a combined health warning as required by regulation 5 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, in that they did not carry a combined health warning consisting of the relevant smoking cessation information ‘Get help to stop smoking at www.nhs.uk/quit’, and supply a GB tobacco product with one of the text warnings with a corresponding colour photograph.

– Was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of any duty chargeable on the goods. Contrary to section 170(2) and (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.