Shift Fashion Models Names, Takeover Industries Inc Stock, Ppg Vibrance Paint Colors, Ward Gangster's Middleton, Lisle Football Roster, Articles S

Smedleys v Breed / EBradbury Law Thus it was that Smedleys Limited, the present appellants, and not Tesco Limited, found themselves defendants to a summons which alleged that the sale by Tesco Limited was of peas which were not of the substance demanded by Mrs. Voss since they included the caterpillar and that this was due to the act or default of Smedleys Limited. Breed (1974). 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. 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. No defence was available to them as the court said that this eventuality was avoidable during the production process (albeit at a prohibitive cost). The relevant sections of the Act are as follows: section 2 (1) provides: "If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food which is not of the substance of the food demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next following section, be guilty of an offence.". 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. A caterpillar was found in it. 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 are able to see any amendments made to the case. 33See: B (a minor) v DPP [2000] 1 AC 248 and K [2002] 1 AC 462. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendants factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. smedleys v breed 1974 case summary - songwanjiashipin.com mens rea. 2, c. 16), ss. . "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.". ACTUS non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is viewed as one of the key principles in common law principles of criminal liability.1 This principle is, however, highly abstract. The following will look into the theoretical ideas behind the mens rea requirement, the current legal framework of strict liability offences in criminal law and the way in which these are justified by the courts in order to answer the set question of whether it is justifiable to hold people responsible for criminal offences, when they did not form mens rea.