Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. Alphacell Ltd v Woodward - e-lawresources.co.uk The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. What Are the Main Elements of a Pastoral Poem - DocsLib 9A. Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839- S 2(1) FDA 1955 - (s 14(1) FSA). Smedleys v Breed (1974) AC 839 A big manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food and Safety Act 1990) when some tins were found to . He was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug contrary to s1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (now replaced). In answering the question of whether and to what extent it is justifiable to hold responsible for criminal offences, those who possess no mens rea, it has been discussed that usually mens rea is a crucial element of criminal liability in criminal law. This innocent insect, thus deprived of its natural destiny, was in fact entirely harmless, since, prior to its entry into the tin, it had been subjected to a cooking process of twenty minutes duration at 250 Fahrenheit, and, had she cared to do so, Mrs. Voss could have consumed the caterpillar without injury to herself, and even, perhaps, with benefit. The caterpillar, which was the larva of a hawk moth, had been canned with the peas. 2Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea, L.Q.R. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. Judgment The Law Reports Weekly Law Reports Cited authorities 42 Cited in 34 Precedent Map . On the other hand, the appellants gave the fullest and most candid account of their processes which led the Magistrates to conclude that they, Thus, if the question certified by the Divisional Court were to be answered, Request a trial to view additional results, Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP and Soon Seng Sia Heng v PP and PP v Chea Soon Hoong and Teh Cheng Poh v PP, Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd, A Right to Assist? R v HM Treasury, ex parte Smedley [1985] 1 QB 657 He was given two boxes, one containing perfume and the other 20,000 tablets of drugs. Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge. Thus it was that Smedleys Limited, the present appellants, and not Tesco Limited, found themselves defendants to a summons which alleged that the sale by Tesco Limited was of peas which were not of the substance demanded by Mrs. Voss since they included the caterpillar and that this was due to the act or default of Smedleys Limited. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Each tin contained between 150 and 200 peas. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. I believe a housewife who orders peas is entitled to complain if, instead of peas, she gets a mixture of peas and caterpillars, and that she is not bound to treat the caterpillar as a kind of uncovenanted blessing. "(3) Where it appears to the authority concerned that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Act against some person and the authority are reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to the act or default of some other person and that the first-mentioned person could establish a defence under subsection (1) of this section, they may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the first mentioned person. 1) an "unavoidable consequence" of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something "inevitable". The defendant company was convicted of "selling food not of the substance demanded by the purchaser" contrary to s2 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 (now replaced). The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. 848E-F, 854D,859D, 860E-F, 861H). Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis. Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. Lord Salmon: R V Bosher 1973 * 1974', Per Lord Hailsham, ' Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974]2 All ER 21(HL) at 24 : Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis . The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. (3) That section 3 (3) was to be construed as imposing a stringent obligation on a defendant (post, p. 987A-B, E-F) and since the caterpillar could readily have been removed from the peas had it been noticed, the defendants had failed to establish the defence on which they relied. Convicted for selling peas some of which had caterpillars in. And equally important, the press in this country are vigilant to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration.. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Strict Liability 4. 1997, 113(Jan), 95-119, 95. Held: As a matter of public policy the offence was one of strict liability and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld. Strict liability - e-lawresources.co.uk They contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation and that they therefore had a defence under s3(3) of the 1955 Act. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16(2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Wildig v Bournemouth Borough Council: CA 26 Apr 2001, McGrady v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: FTTGRC 9 Mar 2021, A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others, Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. If the defendant is unaware that he has been made the subject of an order prohibiting him from entering a country, the imposition of strict liability should he transgress the order would not in anyway promote its observance. If he or she accidentally kills another person during this attempt, the mens rea of the attempt to kill the first person will be transferred to the death of the other person. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with, and, on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the first-mentioned person might have been charged.". She anticipated going to commit suicide at a clinic in Switzerland, and wanted first a clear policy so that her husband who might accompany her would know whether he might be prosecuted under . ACCEPT, (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division), be imposed. But they certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in their decision, namely: section 3(3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839 Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. In allowing the defendants appeal, Lord Evershed expressed the view that the imposition of strict liability could only really be justified where it would actually succeed in placing the onus to comply with the law on the defendant. They also claimed that they had taken all reasonable care. After expressing a good deal of sympathy with the appellants, the Divisional Court (Lord Widgery L.C.J., Mackenna & Bean J.J.) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. After expressing a good deal of sympathy with the appellants, the Divisional Court (Lord Widgery L.C.J., Mackenna & Bean J.J.) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. Related documentation. The defendant had been convicted of contravening an order prohibiting in absolute terms, his entry into Singapore, despite his ignorance of the orders existence. In the event, the Magistrates convicted the appellants and subjected them to a fine of 25, but, on the application of the appellants, stated a Case for the Divisional Court, raising the following questions, viz: "1( a) Whether section 2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, creates an absolute offence; ( b) whether a defence under section 3(3) of the said Act is established if the defendant proves that he took all reasonable care to avoid the presence of extraneous matters in the food; 2. This claim has, however, been vehemently contested.7 The ideas of subjectivism gained in popularity and developed to become the orthodox academic theory of mens rea in the early 20th century, based on the belief that subjectivism had derived its authority from the primary historical use of the theory in the evolution of case law on the subject over many years.8 Apart from this, Jeremy Horder explains in his article Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea, that the proponents of a historical authority of subjectivism have overlooked rival claims of an equally comprehensible set of principles of mens rea which are known as hidden principles.9 Accordingly, the most significant hidden principles are referred to as the malice principle and the proportionality principle. Accordingly, in events that a person has wrongfully directed his or her conduct at a specific interest of another person, this form of malice would justify the criminal liability for the harm caused as a consequence, regardless of whether or not the harm and the degree of the harm suffered by the other person, was previously foreseen as a result. Chat; Life and style; Entertainment; Debate and current affairs; Study help; University help and courses; Universities and HE colleges; Careers and jobs; Introduce yourself Lord Reid stated that a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma. I think that in this case, the use of strict liability was wrong, the vet should have been convicted. If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The tin had been supplied to Tesco Stores Ltd. by the defendants. In this essay, I am going to discuss pure economic loss negligence and the approach of the judiciary to a claim. Advantages and Disadvantages of Strict Liability Summary offences 2 Q . how to cook atama soup with waterleaf. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. The Court applied Lord Scarmans principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favour of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, truly criminal, yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence. Press, 2001) 68 et seq. of this is found in Smedleys v Breed (1974). Mr. Dutchman-Smith took us in the course of argument to authority, and in particular to the case of, Purdy v DPP [2009] UKHL 45 at [64].50 Ibid. Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favour of mens rea would only be displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. Smedleys Ltd v Breed United Kingdom House of Lords 21 March 1974 . 17Ormerod, D. C., Smith, J. C. & Hogan, B., Smith and Hogans criminal law (w York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011) 158. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 28Herring, J., Criminal Law (East Kilbride: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) 86 et seq. The court has the power to sentence an offender to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment (for one offence) and/or up to 5000 fine. P was applying in his own interest and that of all taxpayers and voters. Lord Reid held that the strong inference that possession of a package by an accused was possession of its contents could be rebutted by raising real doubt either (a) whether the accused (if a servant) had both no right to open the package and no reason to suspect that the contents of the package were illicit, or (b) that (if the accused were the owner of the package) he had no knowledge of, or was genuinely mistaken as to, the actual contents or their illicit nature and received them innocently, and also that he had no reasonable opportunity since receiving the package to acquaint himself with its contents. Lord Hope was quoting Viscount Dilhorne in Smedleys Ltd v Breed, fair trial in criminal proceedings38 which is engaged bythe imposition of strict criminal liability and to which we shall returnlater.33. 138, D.C. Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. I believe a housewife who orders peas is entitled to complain if, instead of peas, she gets a mixture of peas and caterpillars, and that she is not bound to treat the caterpillar as a kind of uncovenanted blessing. However, the harm caused cannot be disproportionate in relation to the intended harm, if the criminal liability for this harm should be justified.10, It is clear from the previous, that the malice principle can be classified as being only permissive in nature. 8Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea (1997) L.Q.R. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed 1974,32 a caterpillar was discovered in a can of peas the defendant had sold. A further argument against strict liability is seen in the fact that it punishes reasonable behaviour in cases when defendants have taken all reasonable steps to avert liability and have no guilty mind. The principle. Lesson Objectives. Alcohol abuse: see (1884), consumer prCundy v Le Cocqotection: see Smedleys Ltd v Breed(1974), misuse of drugs: see Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), road safety, prevention of pollution: see Alphacell Ltd. v Woodward (1972), underage gambling: see London Borough of Harrow v Shah and Shah (1999). The Food and Drugs Act, 1955 (s. 113) provides a means whereby, if prosecuted for an offence under the Act, a defendant can seek to cast the blame upon a third party and exonerate himself, and, in order to save the needless expense of an unnecessary prosecution, the local authority is empowered, when it is reasonably satisfied that a defence of this kind could be established, to short circuit proceedings by prosecuting the third party direct. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely in order to find a luckless victim.. 1) an unavoidable consequence of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something inevitable.2) P should consider whether prosecution serves a useful purpose before proceeding.- sentencing - absolute discharge.3) a tin of peas containing a caterpillar was not of the substance demanded.4) in a self-service shop, the food demanded by the purchaser is that represented by the seller whether by description under which it is displayed or on the packaging or by what it appears to be on visual inspection. Accordingly, Wilson claims that a welfarist paradigm of criminal responsibility does not require proof of moral wrongdoing in order to live a life of relative autonomy we require certain basic welfare needs to be ministered to Only the criminal law can satisfactorily ensure that these collective needs can be properly catered for and this is only possible if the criminal law requires all citizens to satisfy standards of good rather than morally blameless citizenship.