View report page

51
not contain saltpetre and other ingredients usually in official cigarettes
and when one ceased to puff it went out. The defendant was
saying that he knew the cigarette was not alight and had changed over
to shag, having regard to those advantages.
Giving judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said that Regulation 9
of the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1955, dealt with personal cleanliness.
It provided: "A person who engages in the handling of food
shall while so engaged (a) keep as clean as may be reasonably practicable
all parts of his person which may be liable to come into contact
with the food" and clause (b) referred to clothing. Then, after
refraining from spitting, it provided that he also had to refrain from
the use of tobacco (including snuff) "while he is handling any open
food or is in any room in which there is open food."
The justices dismissed the information because in their opinion,
the fact that a person had an unlighted cigarette in his mouth in no
way militated against his personal cleanliness, and because " it
would be straining the meaning of the English language to say that
a person who had an unlighted cigarette in his mouth was using tobacco."
The justices had thought that tobacco was only being used
when it was either smoked or chewed.
His Lordship had come to the conclusion that too narrow a view
had been taken by the justices. He went on to say that there was no
purpose in considering all the possibilities that might arise when
enforcing this regulation but taking the fact that the defendant was
serving tomatoes with a half-smoked cigarette which had gone out, in
his mouth, he was clearly using tobacco. One of the mischiefs at
which the regulation was aimed was ash falling on to food and that
could happen when a half-smoked cigarette had gone out. His Lordship
was not deciding whether having a brand new cigarette which had never
been smoked in the mouth was using tobacco.
Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Elwes agreed.
The Court accordingly ordered that the case be remitted to the
Newington Justices with a direction to convict the defendant. The
case came before the Newington Magistrates again on the 30th November,
1960, when the defendant who appeared, was fined the sum of thirty
shillings and ordered to pay ten shillings costs in respect of both
hearings in the Magistrates' Court.
IMPORTATION OF EGG PRODUCTS
Following representations by the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing
Joint Committee to the Minister of Health that there should be a complete
embargo on the importation of egg products until a satisfactory