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 not require a ‘use by’ date under the regulations. Therefore no offence was committed under the relevant regulation. The Council appealed.
Held: The prosecution did not have to show that the food was in a highly perishable state at the date of the alleged offence, but it did have to show that the food had at some stage been in a state which required it to be labelled with a ‘use by’ date and that the date had passed.
The Court certified the following point of law of public importance for the Supreme Court: ‘Does an offence under regulation 44(1)(d) of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require the prosecution to prove that the label or marking bearing the ‘use by’ date, after which the food was sold, was applied at a time when (1) the food was ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or to a catering establishment, and (2) from the microbiological point of view it was highly perishable and in consequence likely after a short period to constitute an immediate danger to human health?’
Judges:
Aikens LJ and Maddison J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 296 (Admin), [2012] CTLC 16
Links:
Statutes:
Food Labelling Regulations 1996
Cited by:
Appeal from – Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Crime
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451432