"(3) Where it appears to the authority concerned that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Act against some person and the authority are reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to the act or default of some other person and that the first-mentioned person could establish a defence under subsection (1) of this section, they may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the first mentioned person. 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. The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. 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. 7th Sep 2021 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. My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 2, c. 16), ss. 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. My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. The caterpillar, which was the larva of a hawk moth, had been canned with the peas. 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. Accordingly, these offences may act as deterring elements in society, but also ensure that certain wrong-doing is dealt with punitively when morally necessary. Chat; Life and style; Entertainment; Debate and current affairs; Study help; University help and courses; Universities and HE colleges; Careers and jobs; Introduce yourself The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. Study Extra Cases flashcards from USER 1's Durham University class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. Assumptions about future mark . E-book or PDF. 20Gaines, L. K & Miller, R. L., Criminal justice in action: the core (Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth, 2007) 80 et seq. The offence carries a small penalty. The justices were of opinion that the offence charged was an absolute offence and that, although the defendants had taken all reasonable care to prevent the caterpillar's presence, it was not an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the peas, and the defendants were convicted. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! It now falls to me to deliver my opinion upon its case. That means that there must be something he can do, directly or indirectly, by supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations. 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. 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. This course outlines the legislation and the key cases that a student studying Unit 1 of the AQA AS Law course, who is planning on responding to questions on 'Criminal Courts and Lay People', 'Delegated Legislation' and 'Statutory Interpretation', should be familiar with. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839 Smedleys were prosecuted for selling a tin of peas which contained a caterpillar. 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. The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. how to cook atama soup with waterleaf. Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely in order to find a luckless victim.. 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. 848E-F, 854D,859D, 860E-F, 861H). and so the courts have slight time to deal with the more . She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge. In order to ensure this, the courts have developed principles which circumvent the violation of the principle of coincidence, in order to ensure strict liability is a possibility in law. 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. 2 (1), 3 (3), Food and Drugs - Act or default of third person - Canners - Large quantities of peas canned - Proper system of inspection during processing - Caterpillar found in one tin supplied to retailer - Proceedings against suppliers -Whether presence of caterpillar unavoidable consequence of process of collection or preparation - Whether statutory defence established - Food and Drugs Act 1955, ss. On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. In particular, strict liability offences may be necessary to preserve public wellbeing. 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. 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. 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. 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. In-house law team. 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 . IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a strict) liability offence. Horder, A Critique of the Correspondence Principle in Criminal Law [1995] Crim.L.R. 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. Continue with Recommended Cookies, The defendant company had sold a can of peas. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Hence, in accordance with Latimer 188634, a defendant may have the necessary mens rea for murder by attempting to kill someone, but is unsuccessful and thus does not perform the actus reus in this regard. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. P sought JR of a treasury (D) decision to pay money out of a consolidated fund to meet EC obligations without consulting parliament. Apart from the present case the defendants had received only three other complaints involving extraneous matter found in tins canned at the factory during the 1971 canning season. 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. Thus, principles have been developed for mens rea which are more concrete in order to explain, amongst others, the various types and levels of mens rea which need to be proved in order to determine whether a persons conduct is considered criminal or not.2 However, despite the theoretical requirements of mens rea to establish criminal liability, there are incidences in criminal law which impose strict liability. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Learn faster with spaced repetition. He was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug contrary to s1 of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (now replaced). Thus, the courts seek to circumvent this principle in certain situations. 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. 234 applied. Actus reus. Notwithstanding non-negligent quality control, there was strict liability at criminal law where a caterpillar identical in colour, size, density and weight to the peas in a tin survived the process in one out of three million tins.Viscount Dilhorne said: In 1951 the question was raised whether it was not a basic principle of the rule of law that the operation of the law is automatic where an offence is known or suspected. Advs and Disadvs of lay magistrates - Life Sciences bibliographies - Cite This For Me. We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. 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. Mrs. Voss had bought a tin of garden peas with other articles from Tesco Stores Ltd., Dorchester, on February 25, 1972. Again I agree. 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.". (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. at [49].51 Ibid. According to Lord Bingham in R v G it is a statutory principle that conviction of serious crime should depend on proof not simply that the defendant caused (by act or omission) an injurious result to another but that his state of mind when so acting was culpable. 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. ", 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.". Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Advanced A.I. > > smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. Principles of criminal liability. Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, 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. No defence was available to them as the court said that this eventuality was avoidable during the production process (albeit at a prohibitive cost). 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.. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. simple past tense and past participle of immolate '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 hawk moth. 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. (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). Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Mr. Dutchman-Smith took us in the course of argument to authority, and in particular to the case of Smedley Ltd. v. Breed [1974] 2 All E.R. Conversely, this principle does not go beyond claiming that a persons mind needs to be guilty in order to be criminally liable for his or her conduct. Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Smedleys Limited against Breed (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division), that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 22d, as on Wednesday the 23d, days of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Smedleys Limited of Ross House, Grimsby, in the County of Lincoln, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of the 23d of May 1973, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; and Counsel having been heard on behalf of William Roger Breed, the Respondent to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice of the 23d day of May 1973, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.