The latest case of ASDA stores Ltd V Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007] concerns the interpretation of a number of provisions in the regulations of food safety (General food hygiene) implemented 1995 ("rules"), the directive (EC) amending 93 / 43.
The applicant was charged with a number of criminal offences in accordance with the regulations. The charges were a mouse brought to the sighting of a customer chew on a piece of confectionery and the subsequent review of environment and health premises officials of the mouse droppings of the plaintiff. The environment and health, which officers had been sent by Wandsworth London Borough Council.
At the South Western Magistrates' Court made the applicant the supply of 'doppelbelastung' fees 3 and 4, which is when two charges against a political party are effectively identical. Wansdworth London Borough Council, claimed in the free set 3, the plaintiffs have to ensure that appropriate procedures were available, so that pests have been checked. Free 4 place it claims, that the plaintiff had failed to minimize the risk of contamination from the activities of such pests. The template, and the applicant had the Court guilty, the charges.
The question was then obliged Crown Court for sentence. Condemnation was then suspended until the results of the immediate appeal of the plaintiff. The complaint is the subject of this case.
The problem fell to appeal to consider was whether the words create separate offences in paragraph 3 of chapter IX of annex 1 of the regulations, or whether an offence created these words. When you have the words to a criminal offence the applicant as a double burden would have subjected and accordingly put under same Act punished twice for effective.
4 Regulation of the rules, when relevant, the:
'(1)... Owner of a food business shall ensure that each of the following operations, namely the preparation, processing, production, packaging, storage, transport, distribution, handling and offering for sale or supply, food will be carried under hygienic. (2) The owner of a food company makes sure that... (d) the requirements laid down in chapter IV X 1 timetable be adhered to as respected, that business'.
Regulation 6 provides:
'(1)... If any person regulation 4 (including any provision of Schedule 1) or 5 does, is a violation of these rules he guilty. (2) Any person guilty of, a violation of these provisions is liable... (a) on summary conviction to a fine of not more than the legal maximum. (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or both '.
Section 3 provides that chapter IX of Schedule 1 of the regulation:
' All food which is handled, stored, packaged, displayed and transported, is protected against any contamination likely to the food unfit for human consumption render harmful or contaminated in such a way that it would be unreasonable to expect that in this State are consumed. In particular must food so placed or protected in order to minimize any risk of contamination. Appropriate procedures need to be sure to control pests "."
The appeal is rejected. The Court of Justice:-.
-On its true construction, paragraph 3 of chapter IX of Schedule 1 created more than a criminal offence the provisions.
Directive (EC) 93 / 43, implemented by the regulations had been directly into national law has been implemented.
-No change in the wording occurred and thus have been the cause of the unusual design style of paragraph 3 of chapter IX of Schedule 1 the rules.
-Furthermore, paragraphs 3 and 4 chapter I of the Schedule 1 the provisions demonstrate that a single paragraph, that an offence could contain.
-In this case the judge was therefore correct to conclude that the plaintiff was subjected to not 'doppelbelastung'. It was noted that free 3 relating to the single incident of mouse found in the confectionery and free of charge 4 with regard to the inadequacy of the procedures, some could have extends much longer period of time.
If you need more information contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or visit http://www.rtcoopers.com
© RT COOPERS, 2007. This briefing note provides a comprehensive or complete wording of the law on the topics discussed, nor it constitutes legal advice. It is to point out only general problems. Specialised legal advice should be sought more in special circumstances.
Full service commercial law firm based in the city of London specialising in commercial and corporate law, corporate finance, corporate lawyers, commercial law, commercial contracts, commercial lawyers, law firm, corporate lawyers, company lawyers, law firm, due diligence, mergers and acquisitions, management buy outs, white wash, sale of shares, sale of companies, offshore companies, offshore transactions, white linen proceedings, corporate law, law, law, law firm, lawyer, lawyers, lawyers in Wapping, solicitors in London Docklands, solicitors in E1, Distribution agreements, agency agreements, commercial contracts, shareholders agreement, companies Act, 2006, branding, terms and conditions, Internet law, food law, regulatory law.
If you need more information contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or visit http://www.rtcoopers.com
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
Post a Comment