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. Breed (1974). On opening the tin on February 29, 1972, she found a caterpillar in the tin among the peas. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. NOTE: The court seems to have been inconsistent in its use of terminology in the present case. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong 198524, guidelines were laid down to determine when an offence is of strict liability. 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. 1. R. v Haystead (2000) 3 All ER 890 (DC) This case concerns indirect contact. 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. However, the proportionality principle, in contrast to the malice principle, restricts this form of liability to occasions in which the harm caused was not disproportionate to the intended harm. 1487; [1972] 3 All E.R. 31Simester and Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007) 169. 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 proceedings under section two of this Act 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.". It was contended by the defendants that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation and that they had established a defence under section 3 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955; that the Act of 1955 did not impose a standard which called for a system of canning which was 100 per cent. 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. 24Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1. . You are not currently signed in - enter your email address and password into the boxes below, or create a new account. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Gardner, Rationality and the Rule of Law in Offences Against the Person [1994] C.L.J. She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge. The focus on the paper is where the right to reject and terminate has arisen but lost at a later stage. 1997, 113(Jan), 95-119, 95. 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. I think that in this case, the use of strict liability was wrong, the vet should have been convicted. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed (1974), A housewife had found a caterpillar in one of the cans of peas she had bought, The caterpillar had gone undetected whilst processed. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. Originally created for students of Wyke Sixth Form College. 74-1, February 2010, Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. 1997, 113(Jan), 95-119, 95. 22Lord Reid in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132. The legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. The offence carries a small penalty. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. However, the answer to the question has to, nonetheless, be that it is justifiable in certain circumstances. This case required the court to decide upon the legality of an operation to separate conjoined twins . 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. 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. 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. E-book or PDF. A further argument against strict liability is seen in the fact that it punishes reasonable behaviour in cases when defendants have taken all reasonable steps to avert liability and have no guilty mind. at [44]. 1056; [1953] 2 All E.R. The defendant was charged under s55 OAPA 1861. It reads (so far as material) as follows: "A person against whom proceedings are brought under this Act shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if, after the contravention has been proved, the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.". In the House of Lords, Lord Morris held that the defendant being in physical control of the package and its contents either: (a) with his consent thereto knowing that it had contents, or (b) with knowledge that the package was in his control, his possession of the tablets was established for the purposes of s1, whether or not the defendant realised that he was in possession of a prohibited drug. It now falls to me to deliver my opinion upon its case. 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. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersCleary v Cleary [1974] 1 WLR 73 (CA) (UK Caselaw) Smedleys Limited v Breed: HL 1974 The defendant company had sold a can of peas. Held: As a matter of public policy the offence was one of strict liability and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld. Another way to circumvent the principle of coincidence is found in Miller 1983.35 Accordingly, if a person creates a dangerous situation without mens rea, he or she is responsible to avert the danger caused. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 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. 848E-F, 854D,859D, 860E-F, 861H). Assumptions about future mark . The magistrates, although finding Smedley's had exercised all reasonable care was nevertheless guilty of the offence of strict liability. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! She was not, however, to know this, and with commendable civic zeal, she felt it her duty to report the matter to the local authority, and in consequence, grinding slow, but exceeding small, the machinery of the law was set in inexorable motion. 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.. 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. Chat; Life and style; Entertainment; Debate and current affairs; Study help; University help and courses; Universities and HE colleges; Careers and jobs; Explore all the forums on Forums home page We do not provide advice. The proportionality principle is interrelated to the malice principle. enterprise car rental fees explained; general manager kroger salary; 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 were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. On 25th February, 1972, Mrs. Voss, a Dorset housewife, entered a supermarket belonging to Tesco Limited and bought a tin of Smedleys' peas. 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. (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. 16J. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone,Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Diplock,Lord Cross of Chelsea,Lord Kilbrandon, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. It was held that in the absence of any evidence that the defendant knew, or had reason for knowing, or that he believed, that the girl was under the care of her father at the time, that a conviction under s55 OAPA 1861 could not be sustained. 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. 290, D.C.; Edwards v. Llaethdy Meirion Ltd. (1957) 107 L.J. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. triangle springs careers; no2cl lewis structure molecular geometry; cabelas lifetime warranty bass pro; jackie giacalone wife 9A. 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.

Mother In Law Suite For Rent Jupiter, Fl, How Long Can Police Hold A Vehicle Under Investigation, Hip Hop Dance Classes In Savannah, Ga, A Chicano Poem Analysis, Person County Sheriff Election Results 2021, Articles S