The company was prosecuted for offences under the Regulations, relating to the designation of horticultural produce for sale. The original Act had been relied upon to implement the European regulations after entry to the EU.
Held: The offences were properly charged. The scope for the subsequent regulations were, to the extent they were not excluded by subsection (3), all directly applicable European Regulations applied whether or not they predated the 1964 Act. ‘offence-creating provisions must always be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision. But the mechanism chosen by Parliament for implementing Community obligations is a matter of legislative choice for Parliament. Particularly where Community legislation may be changed frequently, Parliament may choose to adopt an approach which does not involve making new implementing regulations whenever Community legislation changes. Courts should not approach the interpretation of implementing statutes or regulations as though there were a presumption that they do not embrace future changes in Community legislation. There is no such presumption.’
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 71, Times 19-Dec-2003, Gazette 29-Jan-2004, [2004] ACD 28, [2003] NPC 160, (2004) 168 JP 1, [2004] Eu LR 549, [2004] 1 WLR 105, [2004] 1 CMLR 42, [2004] 1 All ER 268
Links:
Statutes:
Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 11(1) 11(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Antonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior and Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited and Another ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The claimant grew and sold grapes, and complained that the defendant who also traded in grapes was acting in breach of community legislation in failing to meet quality control standards. The national court had held that the claimant had no right . .
Cited – Mayne and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food QBD 3-Aug-2000
The defendants exported beef without the requisite certificates. The UK rules had been made before a Directive came into effect. On appeal after conviction the defendant argued that the rules purported to take account of future amendments. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Agriculture
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188920
