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. 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. 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. Press, 2001) 68 et seq. On opening the tin on February 29, 1972, she found a caterpillar in the tin among the peas. Evidently, the same principle may apply the opposite way around as such that the could be circumstances when one feels that morally a more stigmatising label would be more appropriate to address the same form of harm, in cases in which there is a more serious manifestation of the wrong committed.13 Despite these principles having developed significantly in the English legal principles of culpability, especially the proportionality and the malice principles, it appears that none of the three principles are specifically discussed in the legal textbooks.14 The reason for these general principles being neglected throughout the historic development of criminal law in England and Wales is seen in the idea that the legal evolution follows a movement which is directed towards a so-called ideal subjectivism in relation to criminal liability. The Food and Drugs Act, 1955 (s. 113) provides a means whereby, if prosecuted for an offence under the Act, a defendant can seek to cast the blame upon a third party and exonerate himself, and, in order to save the needless expense of an unnecessary prosecution, the local authority is empowered, when it is reasonably satisfied that a defence of this kind could be established, to short circuit proceedings by prosecuting the third party direct. Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing. Cite case law. The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime; or 2. The vet said it was fine and so he sold it. In order to ensure this, the courts have developed principles which circumvent the violation of the principle of coincidence, in order to ensure strict liability is a possibility in law. We do not provide advice. 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. The principle. The crime is one of social concern; or 3. Smedleys V Breed 1974 15 Q What was Smedleys V Breed 1974 about? 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. Gammon Ltd. v . However, by sanctioning criminal liability in respect of any level of harm caused to a particular interest, derived from the wrongfully directed conduct, the proportionality principle appears to have permissive as well as restrictive elements.11 Both principles permit criminal liability for any harm caused to an interest, which goes beyond what was intended or foreseen. Leave to appeal was subsequently given by the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. 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. 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 manufacturer was held strictly liable despite this having only occurred once while producing of millions of cans. In this essay, I am going to discuss pure economic loss negligence and the approach of the judiciary to a claim. ), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, 3rd series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). 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. The actus reus (Latin for 'guilty act') is made up of all the parts of a crime except the defendant's mental state. The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. Four tins of peas, out of three-and-a-half million tins, produced by the defendants had contained caterpillars. 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? 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. The caterpillar, which was the larva of a hawk moth, had been canned with the peas. Moreover, the imposition of strict liability requires the promotion of the object of the statute. The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. 1) an "unavoidable consequence" of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something "inevitable". Types of offence include blasphemous libel (Lemon v Gay News, 1979), regulatory offences (Smedleys v Breed, 1974 and Sweet v Parsley, 1970) and cases involving public welfare (Harrow LBC v Shah, 1999). 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. 9A. Published: 9th Nov 2020. Info: 2868 words (11 pages) Example Law Essay 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 ( a) on the ability of the prosecution to prove the contravention by Tesco Limited, and the act or default of the appellants and ( b) on the ability of the appellants to establish a defence under section 3(3) of the Act. 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. Lord Salmon: ACCEPT, (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. 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. 5Ashworth, A., Belief, Intent and Criminal Liability, in J. Eekelaar and J. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. (3) is of no practical effect (post, pp. Related documentation. 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. Strict liability offences violate the principle of coincidence as they do not need the mens rea element to be proved. The key argument in favour of an imposition of strict liability is the fact that it offers a level of protection for the public by promoting care. Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis. 1955,1 they relied on section 3 (3). Conversely, this principle does not go beyond claiming that a persons mind needs to be guilty in order to be criminally liable for his or her conduct. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Mrs. Voss had bought a tin of garden peas with other articles from Tesco Stores Ltd., Dorchester, on February 25, 1972. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of the regulations. Attorney General of Hong Kong (1985), the courts gave guidance as to when a crime would be regarded as one of strict liability. While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. 1056; [1953] 2 All E.R. The justices were of opinion that the offence charged was an absolute offence and that, although the defendants had taken all reasonable care to prevent the caterpillar's presence, it was not an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation of the peas, and the defendants were convicted. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence, contrary to s1(1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea. They contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation and that they therefore had a defence under s3(3) of the 1955 Act. I think that in this case, the use of strict liability was wrong, the vet should have been convicted. 21Monaghan, N, Criminal Law (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2014) 25 et seq. 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. Accordingly, people should not be criminally liable for offences, unless a blameworthy state of mind has been proved. The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. 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. enterprise car rental fees explained; general manager kroger salary; Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. I will be able to explain the meaning of strict liability, giving reasons for its use I will be able to state and explain examples of strict liability using decided cases and Acts of Parliament. .Cited Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and others CA 19-Feb-2009 The claimant suffered a debilitating terminal disease. Advanced A.I. The defendant had been convicted of contravening an order prohibiting in absolute terms, his entry into Singapore, despite his ignorance of the orders existence. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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? 1) an unavoidable consequence of a process is something that is bound to result therefrom; something inevitable.2) P should consider whether prosecution serves a useful purpose before proceeding.- sentencing - absolute discharge.3) a tin of peas containing a caterpillar was not of the substance demanded.4) in a self-service shop, the food demanded by the purchaser is that represented by the seller whether by description under which it is displayed or on the packaging or by what it appears to be on visual inspection. The following additional cases were cited in argument: Bibby-Cheshire v. Golden Wonder Ltd. [1972] 1 W.L.R. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. I believe a housewife who orders peas is entitled to complain if, instead of peas, she gets a mixture of peas and caterpillars, and that she is not bound to treat the caterpillar as a kind of uncovenanted blessing. 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. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being committed. Shelley's"Adonais" As a Pastoral; An Evaluation of the Place Occupied by the Greek Pastoral Elegy from Its Earliest Appearance to the Present If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. This innocent insect, thus deprived of its natural destiny, was in fact entirely harmless, since, prior to its entry into the tin, it had been subjected to a cooking process of twenty minutes duration at 250 Fahrenheit, and, had she cared to do so, Mrs. Voss could have consumed the caterpillar without injury to herself, and even, perhaps, with benefit. 18Cartwright, P., Consumer protection and the criminal law: law, theory, and policy in the UK (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 223 et seq. The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. It was sufficient to show that the defendant intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father. The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. Whether we were right, on the facts found by us, to convict the appellant in this case.". The malice principle states that the crux of malicious conduct constitutes conduct which has been wrongfully directed towards a specific interest, such as a personal or a proprietary interest, of a victim. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Judgement for the case R v HM Treasury, ex parte Smedley. We and our partners use data for Personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. The court has the power to sentence an offender to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment (for one offence) and/or up to 5000 fine. After expressing a good deal of sympathy with the appellants, the Divisional Court (Lord Widgery L.C.J., Mackenna & Bean J.J.) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. Principles of criminal liability. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customers drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. 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 . 1997, 113(Jan), 95-119, 95. Such an advantage of Strict Liability is the one for which it was originally made - to stop people getting away without punishment because mens rea couldn't be proven. . Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 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. 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. Publicado por julho 4, 2022 idioms for being bad at something em smedleys v breed 1974 case summary julho 4, 2022 idioms for being bad at something em smedleys v breed 1974 case summary Judgment The Law Reports Weekly Law Reports Cited authorities 42 Cited in 34 Precedent Map . The offence carries a small penalty. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 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. 16J. A Callow V Tillstone 1900 10 Q What is callow V Tillstone about ? 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. by | Jun 14, 2022 | black girl names that start with z | lawrence trilling parents | Jun 14, 2022 | black girl names that start with z | lawrence trilling parents 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. Cases on Strict Liability. Note: a limited defence now exists under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Despite the fact that individual inspection of each pea would not have prevented the offence being committed, Lord Hailsham defended the imposition of str. * 1974', Per Lord Hailsham, ' Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974]2 All ER 21(HL) at 24 : Thereafter, the caterpillar achieved a sort of posthumous apotheosis . The canning process involved the contents of the tins being pressure-cooked for 22 minutes at 250 degrees Fahrenheit. 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 . The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. 27Wells, C., Corporations and criminal responsibility (Oxford [u.a.] Learn faster with spaced repetition. 339 affirmed. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Summary offences 2 Q . The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. 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. In Smedleys Ltd v Breed 1974,32 a caterpillar was discovered in a can of peas the defendant had sold. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. He said he thought they both contained perfume. R. v Haystead (2000) 3 All ER 890 (DC) This case concerns indirect contact. smedleys v breed 1974 case summaryjury duty summons date vs reporting date Get Business Credit and Financing To Grow Your Business!!! On the other hand, they may also be historical authority, which is supported, for instance, by the core direction of the development of recent case law.4 One of the leading ideas of the soundest theory of guilt is provided by Andrew Ashworth,5 who claims that the soundest theory of guilt is best provided for in a version of subjectivism.6 Accordingly, Subjectivists claim that the key question of whether there can be criminal liability without mens rea is best answered by rejecting the idea that it is morally justified to enforce criminal liability on people for consequences which went beyond the ones that were initially intended or foreseen. smedleys v breed 1974 case summaryfun date activities in brooklyn smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. 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. Otherwise it is argued that he or she forms the necessary mens rea, when failing to fulfil the duty of averting the caused danger. According to Lord Bingham in R v G it is a statutory principle that conviction of serious crime should depend on proof not simply that the defendant caused (by act or omission) an injurious result to another but that his state of mind when so acting was culpable. mens rea. 20Gaines, L. K & Miller, R. L., Criminal justice in action: the core (Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth, 2007) 80 et seq. 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. 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. 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. Note: the offence is now contained in the Food Safety Act 1990. 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. 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. Both these principles have been supported by the labelling principle, which may constitute a further hidden principle in accordance with Horder.12 This latter principle explains that in the event that a certain type of criminal wrong is also mirrored in a morally substantial label, such as for example murder, it may be justified to recognise circumstances when the label is not justified or deserved, despite the harm having been caused. orzo recipes with chorizo; jcpenney return policy no receipt; primary care doctors that accept medicaid in colorado springs Lawland. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. immolated. A The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. 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 Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hearsummary offences, some triable either-way offences and the first hearing of indictable offences. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. the defendants, Smedleys Ltd., that on February 25, 1972, Tesco Stores Ltd., Tesco House, Delamere Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, sold to the prejudice of Winifred Maud Voss ("Mrs. Voss") the purchaser thereof, certain food called garden peas which was not of the substance demanded by the purchaser in that the food contained a caterpillar, the larva of one of the hawk moths, contrary to section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and the Dorset County Council, the food and drugs authority concerned, by the prosecutor, were reasonably satisfied that the offence was due to the act or default of the defendants and that Tesco Stores Ltd. could establish a defence under section 113 (1) of the Act of 1955.