Hughes v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 606 (Admin). 1) all elements of the offence charged must be proved before D can be convicted.
- if P charges the wrong offence, D should not be convicted even if the elements of a more serious offence are proved.
2) offences should not be charged on a strained or artificial basis.
R (Dulai and Others) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court and Essex County Council, R (Essex County Council) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1055 (Admin) – S 32 FSA – Ss 50-52 and 59 CJPA. 1) although highly desirable, it was not essential that P in applying for a warrant under s 32(2) FSA should explain why they thought giving notice to traders would defeat the object of entry and search when the reason was obvious.
2) in considering whether a failure by P to disclose information when applying for a warrant might reasonably have led the magistrate to refuse to issue it, account must be taken of what P could and would have said as to the value of that information.
3) words describing premises in a warrant, which were surplusage and irrelevant, did not render the description vague.
4) non-compliance with s 52 CJPA does not necessarily render a seizure under s 50 CJPA unlawful. But, it is to be taken into account on an application under s 59 CJPA or in judicial review proceedings or under s 78 of PACE.
R v Scottish and Southern Energy plc [2012] EWCA Crim 539 – Regs 2, 5 and 9 CPUTR. 1) more than one person may be prosecuted as a “trader” for the same CPUTR offence.
- a non-trading company may be a “trader” and have a “business” within the meaning of the CPUTR.
2) the fact that a trading company employed and trained the relevant staff did not preclude the parent holding company from being a “trader”.
- a trading company could act on its own behalf and also on behalf of its parent company.
- the definition of “trader” is wide and elastic.
- the definition of “commercial practice” is broad and can cover involvement in, or supervision or control of, training.
3) a purposive approach is required to the interpretation of the CPUTR.
Torfaen County Borough Council v Douglas Willis Limited [2012] EWHC 296 (Admin) – reg 44(1)(a) and 44(1)(d) FLR 1996. 1) requirement in reg 44(1)(a) to mark food with a “use by” date only applies once the food is ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or to a catering establishment and if the food at that time is “highly perishable”.
2) if “highly perishable” food is marked with a “use by” date, as required, and subsequently frozen and sold without a “use by” date it would be an offence under reg 44(1)(a).
3) frozen food is not “highly perishable” and hence does not require a “use by” date.
- any “use by” label attached to such frozen food would not “relate” to it and if such food were sold after the use by date expired it would not constitute an offence under reg 44(1)(d).
4) existence of a “use by” label on food is prima facie evidence that the food, at the time it was ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or caterer, was “highly perishable” and hence required such label.
5) if food requires a “use by” label at the point at which it is ready for delivery to the ultimate consumer or caterer, then it must be labelled with a “use by” date at that point. - if the food is subsequently frozen, it does not cease to require to have a “use by” label attached to it.
- if such food is subsequently sold (within the definition in reg 2) after the “use by” date, there will be an offence under reg 44(1)(d).
Latest Articles
Fraudulent Trading: The Four Principles A shortened version of this article was first published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2012) 176 CL&J 27 and 41. The Home Office, in its “Explanatory Notes” to the Fraud Act 2006, sets out four principles which it says are derived from the relevant case law relating to comparable companies legislation. But, are all those principles accurately stated?
Due Diligence and State of Mind: Tesco Revisited Was Lord Diplock correct in saying in Tesco v Nattrass that, to establish a due diligence defence, all a defendant had to do was show that he acted without negligence? First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2011) 175 CL&J 89 and 177.
Material Averments. Does the prosecution have to prove everything alleged in the information? First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2010) 174 CL&J 294 and 311. Additional case references in square brackets.