View report page

Section 9 provides that a person who
(a) sells or offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for the purpose
of sale or of preparation for sale; or
(b) deposits with, or consigns to, any person for the purpose cf sale or for
preparation for sale, any food intended for, but unfit for, human consumption
shall, subject to the provisions of the Section be guilty of an offence.
In the High Court on the l4th October, 1955, in a case in which the problem was
whether a piece of metal in a bun rendered the bun "unfit for human consumption" or
whether the bun was "not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser",
the Lord Chief Justice gave a Judgment which should be a guide to all future prosecutions.
In ruling that the bun was not unfit for human consumption the Lord Chief Justice
quoted the custom of placing threepenny pieces in Christmas puddings, and pellets in
shot pheasants and rabbits, and said that this did not render the food unfit.
It would appear, therefore, that providing the offending matter is purely extraneous
and does not render the food itself unsound or unfit, or have any effect on Its composition,
that action can no longer be taken under Section 9. This would cover also such articles as
glass splinters in milk.
It is also doubtful whether the provisions of Section 3 are appropriate in all such
circumstances. The Section refers to food, etc., not of the nature or not of the substance
or not of the quality of the food demanded. An analytical examination of the food in
question may not substantiate any of these contentions, although physical examination
clearly shows the presence of foreign matter. The foreign matter may not be in the nature
of an adulterant to the food, and may not affect it as such, but rather is an additional
substance and likely to be consumed with it but not as part of It. On the other hand, if
a liquid, say milk, contains splinters of glass which could be inadvertently taken into
the mouth and cause damage it might be argued under Section 3 that the milk was not of the
quality demanded.
In a more recent case before the High Court, however, In which a firm appealed
against their conviction by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under Section 9, the Lord
Chief Justice made it quite clear that where the foreign matter did contaminate the
food a contravention of Section 9 was proved. He did not hesitate to dismiss the appeal
and remarked that it was not necessary even to deliver a Judgment.
The facts in this ease were that a loaf had a 3 inch long piece of bandage,
containing a piece of yellow dressing, adhering to the crust, and Counsel submitted
that there was no contamination or pollution to the loaf. The Lord Chief Justice,
however, was of opinion that a bandage with septic matter on it would contaminate the
loaf.
Sale of Meat Pies.
During the year two successful Court actions followed complaints concerning the
sale of mouldy meat pies. In one instance the vendors were fined £5.0s.0d. and £9.3s.Od.
costs and in the other a fine of £5.0s.0d. with 2/- costs was imposed.
33