Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
HPFPL is an operator of a poultry slaughterhouse under the approval of the FSA. On three dates, it was alleged a chicken had gone onto the scalding tank still alive as its neck had not been cut properly. They were charged with two offences for each occasion. The first offence that they failed to comply with the EU Regulation which required that animals should be spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and a bird had not been stuck and bled out before being processed. The second offence being there was a failure to systematically sever the carotid arteries or vessels, and the animals entered the scalding tank without the absence of visible signs of life being verified. The relevant regulation being reg 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.
The issue for the lower court was whether offences under reg 30(1)(g) require proof of mens rea in HPFPL and whether the prosecution must prove a culpable act or omission on the part of HPFPL. The DJ ruled that no proof of mens rea was required, therefore, there was no need to prove culpability. The DJ stated a case seeking the opinion of the High Court for two questions:
- Did I err in ruling that proof of an offence contrary to reg 30(1)(g) …did not require the prosecution to prove mens rea on the part of an operator?
- Did I err in my ruling that the prosecution was not required to prove a culpable act and/or omission on the part of the business operator when prosecuted for offences contrary to the 2015 Regulations?
The High Court stated the case was precisely covered by the dictum of Lord Bigham CJ in Milford Haven Port Authority [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 423, at 432 and held:
“It follows that the offences set forth in these charges are offences of strict liability, that proof neither of knowledge or culpability on the part of HPFPL as business operator is required, and that the two questions posed by District Judge Cadbury must be answered in the negative.
This application for judicial review must therefore be dismissed, and the criminal proceedings must now proceed before District Judge Cadbury to be finally determined on the basis of whatever further evidence the parties wish to adduce.”
Appeal dismissed – [2020] UKSC 39