A NEWSAGENT couple convicted of selling cigarettes to a boy under 16, have won a battle to clear their names -- as a judge slammed trading standards tactics.

Robert and Rosalind Iredale's premises, the Paper Shop, on Albert Road, Colne, had been the subject of a "test purchase", in which the department used a 14-year-old youth who looked and was dressed older than his age.

He was sold tobacco by an employee of the couple and the Iredales were later fined £400.

Recorder Timothy Ryder, sitting with two justices, had seen a video of the teenager, and said the Trading Standards Department had breached guidelines by using a child close to the maximum age of 16 who looked older because of the way he was dressed.

He said the court supported efforts to stamp out the "wicked" sale of addictive tobacco products to people under 16 but added the bench disapproved of what it saw as a deliberate attempt, in an isolated case, to "unfairly entrap", the subjects of the purchase.

The Crown offered no evidence in the appeal case at Burnley Crown Court and the Iredales' convictions by Reedley Magistrates were quashed.

After the hearing, funded by the National Federation of retail Newsagents, Mr Iredale, 61, who has run his business with his wife for 17 years, said they were pleased with the result and justice had prevailed.

He said the appeal was something he and his wife had to do on principle and added: "We thought we were right and our concern was that other innocent people would have the same problem. My conscience was clear. Children do need protection because there are dubious people who will sell cigarettes to kids in prams and these are the people that the Trading Standards department should be going for."

Mr Iredale claimed the department was more interested in getting a conviction than protecting youngsters.

He said he and his wife were very strict on making sure they did not sell cigarettes to people under 16 and those who sold to children who looked younger should "have the book thrown at them."

Mr Iredale said if they were not sure of a person's age, they would ask for their date of birth and if the person was not ready, they could falter or miscalculate the date. In that case, they were shown the door.

The newsagent, who said he and his wife would have taken the case further if they had lost their appeal, said the only answer to the problems over somebody's age was the issue of identity cards like the rest of Europe. Mr Iredale said his customers had been disgusted over what happened to him and his wife. He added there had to be trading standards for businesses because of a minority of rogue retailers but said: "On this occasion they made a mistake."

Chief trading standards officer Jim Potts said: "We have a vigorous system ourselves with regard to test purchases but we shall review it in the light of the judge's comments."

He said any inference that the department had provided the clothes for the 14-year-old was wrong and that as far as they were concerned he was under 5ft 6ins with no facial hair which would have made him look older.

Mr Potts said: "We felt the way he looked was commensurate with his age. We didn't disguise anyone. We felt he was in normal, casual clothes. But it is a subjective area. He was not asked if he was 16."