A SHOP in Bradford sold an illegal vape to a 13-year-old girl because staff thought she looked older than 18, a court has heard.

A Trading Standards test purchase was carried out at Phones & Vapes on Beckside Road, Lidget Green, on April 6.

The underage test purchaser asked for an eLux ENE Lemon Peach Passionfruit e cigarette, and was sold the item by a members of staff.

It is illegal for vapes and ecigs to be sold to anyone under the age of 18.

The item itself was in fact illegal – shops are not allowed to sell vapes that contain more than 2ml of liquid, which allows for roughly 500/600 puffs.

The item sold to the teen had enough liquid for 3,500 puffs.

On Thursday, Badir Munir Shah – who ran the store at the time, appeared in court charged with the sale of ecigs to a person under the age of 18 and supplying ecigs that did not comply with product requirements.

He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, saying the girl looked over 18, and arguing he did not know that it was illegal to sell a vape of that type.

Shah, 45, of First Street, also argued it was not him that sold the vape.

Mr Hallam, prosecuting on behalf of Trading Standards, said: “From a legal point of view it is your shop, and your responsibility. There was a product in your shop that cannot lawfully be sold in this country.”

He said there was no dispute about what happened, and Shah’s defence, that a 13-year-old looked older than 18 and that nobody in the vape shop knew one of their products was illegal, was unlikely to be successful at a trial.

Shah said: “I didn’t even know I wasn’t allowed to sell vapes with over 2 millilitres of liquid. She didn’t look under 16.”

Mr Hallam told the court: “Ignorance is no defence. The fact he didn’t know it was illegal doesn’t make it legal.

“This was a 13-year-old girl. For sale of any vape to her to be legal she had to be over 18.”

Shah then changed his pleas to guilty.

Mr Hallam told the court Shah had been “entirely cooperative” since the incident.

Shah told the court. “I’m sorry, we shouldn’t have served that to someone younger.”

He said he was currently unemployed, was not on any benefits, and was entirely dependent on his wife’s income, and this would limit his ability to pay any fine.

Shah was fined £400 and ordered to pay £1,028 in costs to Trading Standards and a £160 surcharge.