A ban on reporting the trial of Edinburgh Woollen Mill, which is accused of mislabelling scarves as 100 per cent cashmere, has been overturned despite the firm's concerns about publicity in the run-up to Christmas.
The national chain, based in Langholm, Dumfries and Galloway, denies falsely claiming scarves were pure cashmere on two occasions in 2014.
It is vigorously challenging the testing process used by the prosecution.
READ MORE: 'Record-breaking' Queensferry Crossing will be world's longest bridge
The alleged offences, brought under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012, are said to have taken place at the company's store in Church Place, Dumfries, which is one of its 265 high-street shops.
A trial began at Dumfries Sheriff Court on September 15 but reporting restrictions prevented publicity.
Susan Duff QC, for the accused, argued against an application on behalf of the BBC and ITV Border to revoke the ban, arguing that publicity could affect the evidence of witnesses who are yet to come to court.
READ MORE: Scotland is best place to live in UK, study reveals
She also said: "The accused has a legitimate concern about its business and employees. Now is the busiest time of year for the purchase of cashmere."
She said reporting that scarves were not 100% cashmere could be "prejudicial to the legitimate interests" of the firm.
But Ronnie Clancy QC, for the BBC, argued that this being "the busiest time of year for Christmas orders" was simply an issue of reputation, which is not covered by the Contempt of Court Act under which the reporting ban was made. Sheriff George Jamieson agreed to revoke the interim order he had previously made, and allowed the case to be reported.
Previously, Alison Irving, 52, a trading standards officer at Dumfries and Galloway Council, told the court she had test purchased a blue tartan scarf in February 2014, and a red one four months later.
Both scarves were reduced to £30 from £60 and were labelled as 100% Lochmere cashmere, the court heard.
READ MORE: 'Record-breaking' Queensferry Crossing will be world's longest bridge
Mrs Irving later cut the scarves into pieces, bagged and sealed them, and sent them off to be analysed at two different test labs - SGS UK and Intertek UK.
It emerged she was acting on information from the Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute.
On receiving reports back from the test labs, Mrs Irving said she sent a letter in August 2014 cautioning Edinburgh Woollen Mill.
She said she notified the business that one scarf had been found to contain 84.4% cashmere, while the other was found to have 61.6% cashmere, with the remainder made up of other wool fibres.
Under cross-examination by Ms Duff, the witness said it was "odd" that the results received back from each of the labs had been different from each other.
She said: "They were different from each other but neither said they were 100%."
The witness confirmed that after sending Edinburgh Woollen Mill a sample, the company sent back results from another test lab showing that both scarves were found to be 100% cashmere.
Ms Duff also challenged the evidence of a textile analyst Liqin Zhang, who gave evidence saying she identified wool and yak in the scarf samples.
Ms Duff told Ms Zhang that Edinburgh Woollen Mill had sent a DNA-tested 100% cashmere sample for her to analyse in August 2016.
The lawyer said the fabric had been subject to the same processes and dyed the same colour as the red scarf sample previously tested.
READ MORE: Scotland is best place to live in UK, study reveals
Ms Duff told Ms Zhang: "You identified that 100% cashmere sample as 85% cashmere and 15% unidentifiable fibres.
"The issue is with your identification and not with the product, isn't it?"
Ms Zhang replied: "If the fibre structure is damaged I have to report it as unidentifiable, I can't just guess."
Ms Duff continued: "You couldn't identify fibres that were 100% cashmere, that's down to your ability?"
Ms Zhang replied: "That's my decision on what my observation is. I'm not saying I'm perfect."
The prosecution concluded its case and the hearing was adjourned until November 23.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here