The Council’s officers visited the company’s premises, and after finding there packages of frozen meat whose use date had expired, pursued 23 charges under the 1990 Act and the Regulations. The justices had accepted the company’s argument that the prosecution had to prove that at the date of the alleged offence the food was highly perishable and likely after a short period to constitute an immediate danger to human health.
Held: Under regulation 44(1)(d) it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had food in its possession for the purpose of sale which was the subject of a mark or label showing a ‘use by’ date which had passed. The justices were therefore wrong to accept the company’s submission of no case to answer in relation to the 23 charges brought under that regulation. The answer to the question certified by the Divisional Court is ‘No’.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson
[2013] UKSC 59, [2013] WLR(D) 321, [2013] PTSR 1088, UKSC 2012/0087
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Food Labelling Regulations 1996, Food Safety Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd Admn 20-Feb-2012
The company had been found with frozen meat which had passed the labelled ‘Use by’ date. The magistrates dismissed charges, conclusing that, since they were all frozen at the time of the inspection, they were not then highly perishable and so did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Crime
Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514222