Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. 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. smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. Such an advantage of Strict Liability is the one for which it was originally made - to stop people getting away without punishment because mens rea couldn't be proven. Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that, while the offence created by section 2 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 might be described as an absolute offence in the sense of not requiring mens rea, it was always subject to the possibility of the defendant setting up a defence under section 3 (3) (post, p. 983E). The defendants had instituted and maintained a system whereby the peas were subject to visual examination by properly trained and experienced employees who were not permitted to remain on the inspection line for long periods and who were paid a bonus if they detected and removed extraneous matter. The principle. With Strict Liability, people who commit the crimes which it influences can be seen to be brought to justice. Principles of criminal liability. 22Lord Reid in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132. 4J. .Cited Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009 Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! ", S. 3: "(3) In proceedings under section 2 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.". The then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said: It has never been the rule in this country I hope it never will be that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution. He pointed out that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions only intervene to direct a prosecution when they consider it in the public interest to do so and he cited a statement made by Lord Simon in 1925 when he said: there is no greater nonsense talked about the Attorney-Generals duty than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney-General ought to decide to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what the lawyers call a case. But they certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in their decision, namely: "Is a defence established under section 3(3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, if a Defendant proves that he took all reasonable care to avoid the presence of extraneous matter in the food he manufactures". tin was not an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation; that Bibby-Cheshire v. Golden Wonder Ltd. [1972] 1 W.L.R. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. Section 113 of the Act provides the means of defence of the original vendor referred to above, and the power of the local authority to short circuit the prosecution. 1955,1 they relied on section 3 (3). On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customers drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. 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. 31Simester and Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007) 169. My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. The caterpillar was of a size, colour, density and weight similar to that of the peas in the tin. Accordingly, it is necessary for the subjective mens rea to correspond with the precise nature of the relevant actus reus.16, This discussion necessitates a critical evaluation of the principle of strict liability and the question whether it violates traditional principles of criminal responsibility. 26Wilson, Central Issues in Criminal Theory (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) 72. 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. 28Herring, J., Criminal Law (East Kilbride: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) 86 et seq. 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. Smedleys V Breed 1974 1) an "unavoidable consequence" of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something "inevitable". The proportionality principle is interrelated to the malice principle. [1974] AC 839if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another QBD 26-Mar-2001 Liability under the Act for a defective product was established where the defect was known, even though the current state of knowledge did not make it possible to identify which of the products was affected. NOTE: The court seems to have been inconsistent in its use of terminology in the present case. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839 Smedleys were prosecuted for selling a tin of peas which contained a caterpillar. Gammon Ltd. v . Gardner, Rationality and the Rule of Law in Offences Against the Person [1994] C.L.J. It would have been possible but impracticable for the peas to have been collected in such a way as to avoid the possibility of a caterpillar being present in the can of peas. This bibliography was generated on Cite This For Me on Friday, March 17, 2017. The Act was to be construed to be . Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division [1973] Q.B. Due to the fact that these offences only apply to regulatory crimes instead of true offences, they usually only carry a small penalty and, thus, do not threaten the individuals liberty.29 Nevertheless, attention must be given to arguments against strict liability as well. These are the sources and citations used to research Advs and Disadvs of lay magistrates. The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (now replaced), of being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis. The crime is one of social concern; or 3. 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. of this is found in Smedleys v Breed (1974). The tin of peas had been canned by the defendants at their factory in Dundee, Scotland, on August 19, 1971, and was one of the 3,500,000 similar tins produced by that factory during the six to seven week canning season in 1971. The principal contention of the appellants before your Lordships was that, on the true construction of this subsection, and on the facts found by the Magistrates, the presence of the caterpillar amongst the peas was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation. 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 . The magistrates, although finding Smedley's had exercised all reasonable care was nevertheless guilty of the offence of strict liability. Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis. 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. Bell (eds. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. View examples of our professional work here. The essence of such crimes is to prevent harm rather than to punish a moral wrong26 Furthermore, it is claimed that strict liability has an element of deterrence by encouraging people to follow regulations to protect others from harm.27, A further argument for strict liability is based on the ease of proof, as it is easier for the prosecution to establish criminal liability when the state of mind does not need to be proved.28 Furthermore, it is possible to justify strict liability offences by reference to their sanctions. Case Summary Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. There is some overlap with the categories in that where a crime is regulatory it is often one of social concern and carries a small penalty. the defendants, Smedleys Ltd., that on February 25, 1972, Tesco Stores Ltd., Tesco House, Delamere Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, sold to the prejudice of Winifred Maud Voss ("Mrs. Voss") the purchaser thereof, certain food called garden peas which was not of the substance demanded by the purchaser in that the food contained a caterpillar, the larva of one of the hawk moths, contrary to section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and the Dorset County Council, the food and drugs authority concerned, by the prosecutor, were reasonably satisfied that the offence was due to the act or default of the defendants and that Tesco Stores Ltd. could establish a defence under section 113 (1) of the Act of 1955. 234 applied. 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.". Advanced A.I. English [] Verb []. 1. 2Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea, L.Q.R. The presumption of mens rea has been affirmed by the House of Lords to apply to all statutory offences.33 Accordingly, serious offences are more likely to need evidence of mens rea. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. The defendant was charged under s55 OAPA 1861. However, by sanctioning criminal liability in respect of any level of harm caused to a particular interest, derived from the wrongfully directed conduct, the proportionality principle appears to have permissive as well as restrictive elements.11 Both principles permit criminal liability for any harm caused to an interest, which goes beyond what was intended or foreseen.
Night Owl Motion Detection Notification,
Exit, Pursued By A Bear Monologue,
Articles S