My Lords, I do not think that I need discuss the actual terms of the Case Stated by the Magistrates. 502; see also J. Horder, A Critique of the Correspondence Principle in Criminal Law [1995] Crim.L.R. To view the purposes they believe they have legitimate interest for, or to object to this data processing use the vendor list link below. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. . While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Leave to appeal was subsequently given by the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House. 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. Strict liability offences are the manifestation of Parliament's intention to criminalize conduct without requiring proof that such conduct was accompanied by a culpable state of mind. 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 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. 28Herring, J., Criminal Law (East Kilbride: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) 86 et seq. The canning process involved the contents of the tins being pressure-cooked for 22 minutes at 250 degrees Fahrenheit. Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. The offence is one of strict liability as the defendant had to be shown to have known that he was using the equipment. The offence related to an underground pipe which had become disconnected due to a blockage. The most significant argument in this regard is that strict liability offences violate the principle of coincidence, which is a traditional notion in the area of criminal responsibility. One of these circumventions is found in the doctrine of transferred malice. smedleys v breed 1974 case summaryfun date activities in brooklyn smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. W. B. Simpsons review of J. Stuart Andersons Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law 1832-1940 (1993) 56 M.L.R., 608-609. The defendants had instituted and maintained a satisfactory system for the random sampling of tins of peas at the end of the canning process so that they could be checked for quality control. Continue with Recommended Cookies, The defendant company had sold a can of peas. The justices were of the opinion that the offence charged against the defendants was an absolute offence and that although they had satisfied the justices that they had taken all reasonable care to prevent the presence of the caterpillar in the tin, that was not an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the peas. The Court applied Lord Scarmans principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favour of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, truly criminal, yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed 1974,32 a caterpillar was discovered in a can of peas the defendant had sold. The caterpillar was of a size, colour, density and weight similar to that of the peas in the tin. 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. [1974] AC 839if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another QBD 26-Mar-2001 Liability under the Act for a defective product was established where the defect was known, even though the current state of knowledge did not make it possible to identify which of the products was affected. 2 (1), 3 (3), The defendants, who canned 3,500,000 tins of peas in a factory during a season of some seven weeks, supplied to a retail store a tin of peas which was found by its purchaser to contain a caterpillar. Smedleys Ltd. v. Breed, Request a trial to view additional results, Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP and Soon Seng Sia Heng v PP and PP v Chea Soon Hoong and Teh Cheng Poh v PP. (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. 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. 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. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16(2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. However, the harm caused cannot be disproportionate in relation to the intended harm, if the criminal liability for this harm should be justified.10, It is clear from the previous, that the malice principle can be classified as being only permissive in nature. The caterpillar found in the tin in the present case was sterile, harmless and would not have constituted a danger to health if it had been consumed, and it did not affect the substance of the peas. 977; [1973] 3 W.L.R. Despite what has been said by my Noble and Learned friend, Viscount Dilhorne, to the contrary, I think this concession to have been right. He said he thought they both contained perfume. 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 hawkmoth. Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". *You can also browse our support articles here >. Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. Lord Reid held that the strong inference that possession of a package by an accused was possession of its contents could be rebutted by raising real doubt either (a) whether the accused (if a servant) had both no right to open the package and no reason to suspect that the contents of the package were illicit, or (b) that (if the accused were the owner of the package) he had no knowledge of, or was genuinely mistaken as to, the actual contents or their illicit nature and received them innocently, and also that he had no reasonable opportunity since receiving the package to acquaint himself with its contents. 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. On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. 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.". Summary offences 2 Q . 1997, 113(Jan), 95-119, 95. It would have been possible but impracticable for the peas to have been collected in such a way as to avoid the possibility of a caterpillar being present in the can of peas. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with, and, on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the first-mentioned person might have been charged.". Sweet v Parsley (1970) This is particularly the case with true crimes where conviction involves serious consequences, B v DPP (2000) Of course where an offence is unclear and yet involves issues of social concern, the courts are at liberty to interpret the crime as one of strict liability as they did in the Shah case. Judgement for the case R v HM Treasury, ex parte Smedley. The following cases are referred to in the judgments: Edwards v. Llaethdy Meirion Ltd. [1957] Crim.L.R. smedleys v breed 1974 case summarydetoxify ready clean reviews 2020 smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. Though the contrary was argued in the Divisional Court, it was accepted in this House that the substance of the peas and caterpillar taken together were not of the substance demanded by the purchaser. Lord Reid stated that a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma. R V Bosher 1973 234 applied. On appeal against conviction on the grounds that it had not been established that the food was not of the substance demanded and that on a liberal reading of section 3 (3) and having regard to modern production methods the occasional presence of a caterpillar in a tin of peas was inevitable:-. Wright J stated: It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. 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. If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. The defendant met a girl under sixteen years of age in a street, and induced her to go with him to a place at some distance, where he seduced her, and detained her for some hours. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 8Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea (1997) L.Q.R. NOTE: The court seems to have been inconsistent in its use of terminology in the present case. It was held by the House of Lords that in order to establish a defence under s3(3) it was necessary to show that the presence of the extraneous matter was a consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the food and that that consequence could not have been avoided by any human agency; it was not sufficient for the defendant to show that he had taken all reasonable care to avoid the presence of the extraneous matter. smedleys v breed 1974 case summaryjury duty summons date vs reporting date Get Business Credit and Financing To Grow Your Business!!! Public Safety Atkinson v McAlpine (1974) Gammon v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1985) PC Read the law report enclosed and answer the following questions: What happened in this case? According to this, a defendants intention regarding one crime can be transferred to his or her performance of the actus reus in relation to another crime. 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. 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. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. In the case of Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1985), the courts gave guidance as to when a crime would be regarded as one of strict . The principle. 848E-F, 854D,859D, 860E-F, 861H). 7J. It goes without saying that both Tescos Limited and Smedleys Limited are firms of the highest reputation, and no-one who has read this case or heard it argued could possibly conceive that what has occurred here reflects in any way on the quality of their products, still less upon their commercial reputations. Originally created for students of Wyke Sixth Form College. The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. On a charge against the defendants in respect of the sale of the tin to the prejudice of the purchaser of food not of the substance demanded, contrary to section 2 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act. In the case of . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Advanced A.I. 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 hawkmoth. Lord Salmon stated: If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. In allowing the defendants appeal, Lord Evershed expressed the view that the imposition of strict liability could only really be justified where it would actually succeed in placing the onus to comply with the law on the defendant. Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - 2009 Victor Smith. It was held that the mens rea presumption was considerably stronger when the offence was truly criminal in nature, instead of merely regulatory, and this could be displaced only by express wording or in the event that it was a necessary implication of a statutory effect.25 In this sense, the statute needs to involve a matter of social concern. On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. Here, when a person acts maliciously towards another person, which results in worse harm being caused than previously anticipated, the harm done for which this person will be held criminally liable is proportional to the severity of the intended injury whether or not that harm was anticipated. This, after all, is the meaning of actus non facit reum nisi mens rea sit.30 Simester and Sullivan commented that Parliament normally does not, and indeed should not, intend to make criminals of those who are not blameworthy and do not warrant that label.31. Smedleys v Breed (1974) AC 839 A big manufacturer of tinned peas was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food and Safety Act 1990) when some tins were found to . Reference this English [] Verb []. Held: Despite having shown that they had taken all reasonable care, the defendant was guilty of selling food not to the standard required. Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, 3. Principles are thought to become authoritative in a minimum of two senses. Brought to you by: EBradbury & Rocket Education 2012 - 2021EBradbury & Rocket Education 2012 - 2021 Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Wildig v Bournemouth Borough Council: CA 26 Apr 2001, McGrady v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: FTTGRC 9 Mar 2021, A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others, Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Related documentation. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. 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. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Bibby-Cheshire v. Golden Wonder Ltd. [1972] 1 W.L.R. Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Advanced A.I. . 16J. On the other hand, the appellants gave the fullest and most candid account of their processes which led the Magistrates to conclude that they, Thus, if the question certified by the Divisional Court were to be answered, Request a trial to view additional results, Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP and Soon Seng Sia Heng v PP and PP v Chea Soon Hoong and Teh Cheng Poh v PP, Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd, A Right to Assist? Smedleys V Breed 1974 1) an "unavoidable consequence" of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something "inevitable". 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Strict Liability 4. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Even if it were accepted that the presence of the caterpillar was a consequence of the process of collection or preparation rather than something which had occurred despite those processes, the defendants were not entitled to rely on s3(3) since the caterpillar could have been removed from the peas during the process of collection or preparation and its presence could thereby have been avoided. 10Tadros, V., The ends of harm: The moral Foundations of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 331. Advs and Disadvs of lay magistrates - Life Sciences bibliographies - Cite This For Me. If the defendant is unaware that he has been made the subject of an order prohibiting him from entering a country, the imposition of strict liability should he transgress the order would not in anyway promote its observance. mens rea. Accordingly, it is necessary for the subjective mens rea to correspond with the precise nature of the relevant actus reus.16, This discussion necessitates a critical evaluation of the principle of strict liability and the question whether it violates traditional principles of criminal responsibility. ", 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.". 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. 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. The defence under the Act was available only if the incident was unavoidable, but that would require every person in the production line to have done everything humanly possible. 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.
Aj Perdomo Net Worth,
4 Drawer Chest Model,
What Did German Soldiers Call Each Other,
Dw Brooks Funeral Home Obituaries,
Articles S