||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 139 (Feb)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Clarke LJ, Cresswell and Ouseley JJ
||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.
||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).
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 .
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary