Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2001] All ER (D) 139 (Feb)
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Clarke LJ, Cresswell and Ouseley JJ

Representation Fred Philpott (instructed by Margetts & Ritchie, Birmingham) for the defendant.
  Malcolm Gibney (instructed by Legal Department of the London Borough of Enfield) for the prosecution.
Judgment Dates: 12 February 2001


Food and drugs - Defence to proceedings - Handling meat products in unapproved premises - Defendant invoking statutory defence of due diligence - Judge directing jury to convict - Whether judge in error in not leaving defence to jury - s 21 - Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994, regs 4(1), 20(1).

The Case

On the facts of the instant case where the defendant was charged with handling meat products in unapproved premises contrary to reg4(1) and 20(1) of the meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994, the judge had been in error in directing the jury to convict in circumstances where the defence raised matters that it alleged established the statutory defence of due diligence contained in s21(1) of the .

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.