smedleys v breed 1974 case summary

Smedleys v Breed (1974) The D's, a large scale manufacturer of tinned peas, producing over 3 million tins in a seven week season, was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955 . Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". Again I agree. It was held that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 26Wilson, Central Issues in Criminal Theory (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) 72. Case Law; Smedleys Ltd v Breed. . The manufacturer was held strictly liable despite this having only occurred once while producing of millions of cans. The relevant sections of the Act are as follows: section 2 (1) provides: "If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food which is not of the substance of the food demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence.". The defendants were convicted under the Food and Drugs act 1955, after a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. It was held that in the absence of any evidence that the defendant knew, or had reason for knowing, or that he believed, that the girl was under the care of her father at the time, that a conviction under s55 OAPA 1861 could not be sustained. Moreover, the imposition of strict liability requires the promotion of the object of the statute. W. B. Simpsons review of J. Stuart Andersons Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law 1832-1940 (1993) 56 M.L.R., 608-609. . The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. 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. 5Ashworth, A., Belief, Intent and Criminal Liability, in J. Eekelaar and J. Although the contrary had been contended below, it was conceded before your Lordships that the peas, with the caterpillar among them, were not of the substance demanded by Mrs. Voss. The defendants had instituted and maintained a satisfactory system for the random sampling of tins of peas at the end of the canning process so that they could be checked for quality control. "In proceedings under section two of this Act in respect of any food containing some extraneous matter, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation.". 21 H.L., a case that offers some assistance on the meaning of "unavoidable . Principles of criminal liability. In particular, strict liability offences may be necessary to preserve public wellbeing. ACCEPT, (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. Bell (eds. Principles are thought to become authoritative in a minimum of two senses. The court held that P had standing but the challenge failed on its merits. 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. 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. 7th Sep 2021 Smedleys Ltd. v. Breed, 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. 234, D.C. followed. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Despite what has been said by my Noble and Learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, to the contrary, I think this concession to have been right. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! smedleys v breed 1974 case summaryjury duty summons date vs reporting date Get Business Credit and Financing To Grow Your Business!!! He was charged with an offenceof taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (now s20 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956). Looking for a flexible role? It goes without saying that both Tescos Limited and Smedleys Limited are firms of the highest reputation, and no-one who has read this case or heard it argued could possibly conceive that what has occurred here reflects in any way on the quality of their products, still less upon their commercial reputations. enterprise car rental fees explained; general manager kroger salary; Here, when a person acts maliciously towards another person, which results in worse harm being caused than previously anticipated, the harm done for which this person will be held criminally liable is proportional to the severity of the intended injury whether or not that harm was anticipated. Stephen J stated: Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied comes within that category. Both these principles have been supported by the labelling principle, which may constitute a further hidden principle in accordance with Horder.12 This latter principle explains that in the event that a certain type of criminal wrong is also mirrored in a morally substantial label, such as for example murder, it may be justified to recognise circumstances when the label is not justified or deserved, despite the harm having been caused. (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. The relevant sections of the Act are as follows: Despite what has been said by my Noble and Learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, to the contrary, I think this concession to have been right. Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. Strict Liability 4. In the case of . 11Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea (1997) L.Q.R. The following will look into the theoretical ideas behind the mens rea requirement, the current legal framework of strict liability offences in criminal law and the way in which these are justified by the courts in order to answer the set question of whether it is justifiable to hold people responsible for criminal offences, when they did not form mens rea. Chat; Life and style; Entertainment; Debate and current affairs; Study help; University help and courses; Universities and HE colleges; Careers and jobs; Explore all the forums on Forums home page It reads (so far as material) as follows: The appellants did not seek themselves to make use of this procedure as regards any third party, and thus the case before the Magistrates turned (, section 2(1) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". I am, therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed.. 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 . 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. 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. On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. It was contended by the prosecutor that section 2 (1) of the Act of 1955 created an absolute offence; that the defence under section 3 (3) was not available to the defendants because the presence of the caterpillar in the. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Bibby-Cheshire v. Golden Wonder Ltd. [1972] 1 W.L.R. The Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hearsummary offences, some triable either-way offences and the first hearing of indictable offences. 24Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1. Such an avail of rigorous Liability is the one for which it was origin aloney made to stop good deal getting away without punishment because mens rea couldnt be proven. It was held that the mens rea presumption was considerably stronger when the offence was truly criminal in nature, instead of merely regulatory, and this could be displaced only by express wording or in the event that it was a necessary implication of a statutory effect.25 In this sense, the statute needs to involve a matter of social concern. 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. 8Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea (1997) L.Q.R. Shelley's"Adonais" As a Pastoral; An Evaluation of the Place Occupied by the Greek Pastoral Elegy from Its Earliest Appearance to the Present 339 affirmed. Goulder v. Rook [1901] 2 K.B. It reads (so far as material) as follows: "A person against whom proceedings are brought under this Act shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if, after the contravention has been proved, the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.". 2 (1), 3 (3), The defendants, who canned 3,500,000 tins of peas in a factory during a season of some seven weeks, supplied to a retail store a tin of peas which was found by its purchaser to contain a caterpillar. The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime; or 2. smedleys v breed 1974 case summary . You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence, contrary to s1(1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea. The Act was to be construed to be . We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. NOTE: The court seems to have been inconsistent in its use of terminology in the present case. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. 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. . This assignment will take an overview of the criminal activities that take place in the arena of environmental law and assess the sanctions imposed. Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Only full case reports are accepted in court. He was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug contrary to s1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (now replaced). 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. Unfortunately, and without any fault or negligence on the part of the management of either Company, when Mrs. Voss got home, she discovered that the tin, in addition to something more than 150 peas, contained a green caterpillar, the larva of one of the species of hawkmoth. From local authority to the Dorchester magistrates, from the Dorchester magistrates to a Divisional Court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England, from the Lord Chief Justice to the . Chat; Life and style; Entertainment; Debate and current affairs; Study help; University help and courses; Universities and HE colleges; Careers and jobs; Introduce yourself It was contended by the defendants that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation and that they had established a defence under section 3 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955; that the Act of 1955 did not impose a standard which called for a system of canning which was 100 per cent. Lord Evershed stated: But it is not enough in their Lordships opinion merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended. 977; [1973] 3 W.L.R. Lord Salmon: 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. 138, D.C. and Southworth v. Whitewell Dairies Ltd. (1958) 122 J.P. 322, D.C. considered. The defendant was charged under s55 OAPA 1861. 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? 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. 402; 107 L.J. 1487; [1972] 3 All E.R. The caterpillar was of a size, colour, density and weight similar to that of the peas in the tin. Lord Widgery, C.J. 848E-F, 854D,859D, 860E-F, 861H). Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. For example, once the buyer makes a total waiver, for instance, a statement that he will forgive the seller no matter what he does, he will lose the right to reject and terminate. Legal Nature of the Banker-Customer Relationship. 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. 701, D.C. On June 6, 1972, an information was preferred by the prosecutor, William Roger Breed, a chief inspector of weights and measures, against, 1 Food and Drugs Act 1955, s. 2: "(1) If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food which is not of the substance demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence. Food and Drugs - Substance of article demanded - Peas - Large quantities canned by suppliers - One tin containing caterpillar - Whether food of substance demanded - All reasonable care taken by suppliers to avoid presence of extraneous matter - Whether statutory defence established - Food and Drugs Act 1955 (4 EIiz. at [44]. 1487 was not applicable and Southworth v. Whitewell Dairies (1958) 122 J.P. 322 could be distinguished; and that Lindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. A caterpillar was found in it. (2) That, in determining whether food containing extraneous matter was of the substance demanded, the question, which was one of fact for the justices, was whether an ordinary reasonable purchaser would be so affronted by the presence of the extraneous matter as to regard the whole article as unfit and, therefore, not of the substance demanded (post, p. 985C-D). Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it. The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. On a charge against the defendants in respect of the sale of the tin to the prejudice of the purchaser of food not of the substance demanded, contrary to section 2 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act. 738, D.C. Evans v. Jones [1953] 1 W.L.R. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his arm-band, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Related documentation. ACCEPT, (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division), be imposed. The manufacturer was held strictly liable despite this having only occurred once while producing of millions of cans. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. The defendant met a girl under sixteen years of age in a street, and induced her to go with him to a place at some distance, where he seduced her, and detained her for some hours. 9A. Section 5 creates the offence of possessing a controlled drug, but s28 goes on to provide that a defendant should be acquitted if he can show that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, that the substance was a prohibited drug. 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. Press, 2001) 68 et seq. Smedleys v Breed; the facts of the case are then outlined to show the operation of strict liability Strict liability offences do not need proof of mens rea in relation to one or more of the actus reus elements.17 These largely constitute statutory offences and generally regulatory offences that apply to issues such as food safety, pollution, public health or road traffic.18 A fundamental criminal law principle is that criminal liability needs both the elements of actus reus as well as mens rea.19 Thus, it is possible to argue that an imposition of criminal liability on a person without proving that he or she has guilty mind, would violate the traditional notion of criminal responsibility.20, It is not essentially evident from looking to the statutory provision if an offence falls under strict liability.21 It has been held that, when a statutory provision is tacit regarding mens rea, that it is presumed that the mens rea elements are necessary.22 Yet, this presumption could be expatriated by the words within the statute or through the subject-matter of the offence in question.23. The justices heard the information on August 30, 1972, and found the following facts. Advanced A.I. The vet said it was fine and so he sold it. My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. The crime is one of social concern; or 3. On the other hand, they may also be historical authority, which is supported, for instance, by the core direction of the development of recent case law.4 One of the leading ideas of the soundest theory of guilt is provided by Andrew Ashworth,5 who claims that the soundest theory of guilt is best provided for in a version of subjectivism.6 Accordingly, Subjectivists claim that the key question of whether there can be criminal liability without mens rea is best answered by rejecting the idea that it is morally justified to enforce criminal liability on people for consequences which went beyond the ones that were initially intended or foreseen. Unfortunately, and without any fault or negligence on the part of the management of either Company, when Mrs. Voss got home, she discovered that the tin, in addition to something more than 150 peas, contained a green caterpillar, the larva of one of the species of hawkmoth. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, 3. 22Lord Reid in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132. Smedleys Ltd v Breed United Kingdom House of Lords 21 March 1974 . The wording of the Act indicates strict liability; or 4. Learn faster with spaced repetition. 1) an "unavoidable consequence" of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something "inevitable". From local authority to the Dorchester Magistrates, from the Dorchester Magistrates to a Divisional court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England, from the Lord Chief Justice to the House of Lords, the immolated insect has at length plodded its methodical way to the highest tribunal in the land. foolproof; that the defence provided by section 3 (3) imported a standard of reasonable care, and the evidence showed that the defendants had in fact taken reasonable care; and that it was possible to distinguishLindley v. George W. Horner & Co. Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. ACTUS non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is viewed as one of the key principles in common law principles of criminal liability.1 This principle is, however, highly abstract. View examples of our professional work here. (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. I will be able to explain the meaning of strict liability, giving reasons for its use I will be able to state and explain examples of strict liability using decided cases and Acts of Parliament. 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.