Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 116 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 2029 (Admin)
Court: Divisional Court

Brooke LJ and Bell J

Representation Kenneth Parker QC and Kassie Smith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the appellant.
  Simon Temple (instructed by Beaty & Co) for the first respondent.
  Paul Evans (instructed by Scott Duff & Co) for the second respondent.
Judgment Dates: 9 October 2002


Criminal law - Medicine - Sale by retail - Prescription only veterinary medicine - Charge of selling by retail a prescription only veterinary product - No admissible evidence of contents of products - Whether label to be deemed an admission as to the statements contained thereon - Whether necessary for prosecution to adduce expert evidence of chemical composition of product - Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994, regs 3 and 16 - Medicines (Veterinary Drugs)(Prescription Only) Order 1991, Sch 1 - ss 58(2)(a) and 67 - .

The Case

Where a person was charged with offences under ss58(2)(a) and 67 of the and regs3 and 16 of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 concerning the sale of veterinary medicinal products without a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner and in respect of which no market authorisation had been granted, the labels on the product would provide prima facie admissible evidence as to the statements contained in them by reason of s24 of the . Further, having regard to the special meaning given to the phrase 'medicinal product' by EC law, because a product might be medicinal by presentation and not necessarily by function, it was not necessary for a prosecutor to adduce evidence of its ingredients. Rather it was sufficient for him to show that the product was presented for treating or preventing disease, whether by its labelling, packaging, or otherwise.

Practice Areas

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