Callow v Tillstone
A butcher was guilty of selling unfit meat even though he had relied on a vet's certificate that it was sound.
Facts
Mr Callow, a butcher, asked a veterinary surgeon to examine the carcass of a heifer before he sold the meat, and the vet certified that it was sound. The vet's examination had been negligent, and the meat was in fact unfit for human consumption. Mr Callow was charged with exposing unsound meat for sale.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court upheld his conviction. The offence was one of strict liability, so it did not matter that Mr Callow had taken reasonable care by having the meat examined by a vet and had no reason to believe that it was unsound. The case illustrates the harshness of strict liability, which may convict a person who has done everything reasonably possible to avoid committing the offence.
Related cases on strict liability
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
- B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428
- Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1
- Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999] 3 All ER 302
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 903
- R v G (2008) [2008] UKHL 37, [2009] 1 AC 92
- R v K [2001] UKHL 41, [2002] 1 AC 462
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
