The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones of strict liability. The judge had looked to the outcome of the offences of failing to make arrangements, finding that if administered drugs were not recorded, then it was the case that proper arrangements for recording had not been made. The protection to the defendant came in that he would first receive a notice on which he could make representations.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay: ‘Describing offences as ones of ‘strict liability’ is not the same as describing them as ones of ‘absolute liability’. In the present context it means that the proven facts establish the offence without regard to what was in the mind or imputed mind of the defendant. Outcome is relevant but not necessarily determinative. It is a question of fact and degree. In considering that question, the National Minimum Standards are relevant and must be taken into account. That does not mean, as Mr Kimblin submits, that the Standards are being allowed to create or define the offences. It simply means that, in deciding whether a statutorily defined offence has been committed, the court will take into account the statutorily enabled standards. ‘
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ, Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1165 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Care Standards Act 2000 25, Care Homes Regulations 2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove QBD 17-Jun-1999
The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions, crime
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242202