Belgian Public Prosecutor v Aldi SA, C-483/24, EU:C:[2026]:396 – Articles 4(2) and 5 and Chapters I, V and IX of Annex II to HFR. 1) pest droppings in food premises do not of themselves infringe Annex II, Chapter I, paragraph 2(c) HFR if characteristics of the premises permit implementation of good hygiene practices to prevent contamination.
2) obligation under Annex II, Chapter V, paragraph 1(a) HFR to clean and disinfect, to avoid any risk of contamination, not complied with if pest droppings in fittings and equipment with which food has contact.
3) obligation under Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 2 HFR to store raw materials and ingredients adequately, not complied with if pest droppings plus nibbled and soiled products present.
4) requirement in Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 3 HFR to protect food against any contamination likely to render it unfit for consumption, and objective of ensuring high level of protection of consumers health, not complied with if food soiled and nibbled by pests.
5) strong indication that obligation for pest control procedures under Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 4 HFR not complied with if pests present in food business shops or warehouses.
- repeated presence of pests demonstrates obligation to adopt such procedures infringed.
6) implementation of HACCP principles under Article 5 HFR cannot remove responsibility to comply with Annex II HFR.
R v Beckett [2026] EWCA Crim 462 – S 993(1) CA 2006 – CPUTR. - fraudulent trading – relevance of offending not charged – sentencing.
1) fraudulent purpose.
- dishonesty necessary element of fraud.
- can be fraud without deception.
- business fraudulent if acting beyond bounds of what ordinary, decent, people engaged in business regard as honest.
- fraudulent purpose can exist even if objective, such as sales, not achieved.
- misconduct may be evidence of fraudulent purpose, but not ingredient of fraudulent trading.
- proof of specific misconduct not required.
2) relevance of breaches of CPUTR to fraudulent trading.
- fraudulent trading not require proof of unfair trading practices.
- but, proof of such breaches may help determine whether company acted beyond what ordinary, decent, people engaged in business regard as honest.
3) “unfair commercial practices” can be appropriate general description for particular business practices.
4) industry standards are informed by CPUTR.
- relevant to D’s dishonesty whether D knew or believed business contravened legislation designed to catch sharp practices and rogue traders.
5) fraud sentencing guidelines relevant to fraudulent trading only by analogy.
- fraudulent trading covers wide spectrum of offending.
- court rarely assisted by examples of sentencing on different facts.
R v Lakeman [2026] EWCA Crim 4 – Ss 1, 4 and 5 TA. - whether digital asset constitutes “property” within TA not dependent upon civil law requirements or test of rivalrousness.
- s 4 TA definition of “property” not exhaustive; it is aimed at property in the sense of a thing which someone can steal.
- virtual in-game wealth such as gold pieces is/are capable of being “property”.
Decision on permission to appeal to Supreme Court PENDING.
R (GSX) v Southwark Crown Court and Ors [2026] EWHC 538 (Admin) – Ss 8, 9 and 15(6)(b) PACE - s 59(6) and (7) CJPA. 1) s 8(1)(d) PACE prohibits s 8 warrant where reasonable grounds for believing items sought subject to legal professional privilege or are business material held in confidence.
- warrant application defective when not give required information.
- warrant application flawed when includes SIF giving potential impression subject involved in other wrongdoing.
2) court to exercise restraint in preventing recourse to s 59 CJPA jurisdiction (to retain unlawfully seized material).
- not in public interest for person to be better protected from prosecution due to errors by applicant for search warrant.
Alleging Uncharged Breaches of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to Prove Fraudulent Trading. Victor Smith notes that the Court of Appeal, in R v Beckett, accepted that establishing breaches of the CPUTR, although not themselves charged as offences, could assist in proving fraudulent trading. He questions, however, the wisdom of doing so when it appears from the facts that it introduced an unnecessary complication and distraction.
First published in Consumer Crime Cases on 19 June 2026.
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
What's popular
Belgian Public Prosecutor v Aldi SA, C-483/24, EU:C:[2026]:396 – Articles 4(2) and 5 and Chapters I, V and IX of Annex II to HFR. 1) pest droppings in food premises do not of themselves infringe Annex II, Chapter I, paragraph 2(c) HFR if characteristics of the premises permit implementation of good hygiene practices to prevent contamination.
2) obligation under Annex II, Chapter V, paragraph 1(a) HFR to clean and disinfect, to avoid any risk of contamination, not complied with if pest droppings in fittings and equipment with which food has contact.
3) obligation under Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 2 HFR to store raw materials and ingredients adequately, not complied with if pest droppings plus nibbled and soiled products present.
4) requirement in Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 3 HFR to protect food against any contamination likely to render it unfit for consumption, and objective of ensuring high level of protection of consumers health, not complied with if food soiled and nibbled by pests.
5) strong indication that obligation for pest control procedures under Annex II, Chapter IX, paragraph 4 HFR not complied with if pests present in food business shops or warehouses.
- repeated presence of pests demonstrates obligation to adopt such procedures infringed.
6) implementation of HACCP principles under Article 5 HFR cannot remove responsibility to comply with Annex II HFR.