Smedleys Ltd v Breed
A food manufacturer was guilty of selling food not of the substance demanded, even though one caterpillar in millions of tins had got through its quality controls.
Facts
Smedleys produced tins of peas, and one tin sold to a customer contained a caterpillar, which had been sterilised in the canning process and was harmless. Smedleys had an extremely high standard of quality control, and only four complaints had been received out of over three million tins in that season. It was charged under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 with selling food that was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction. The offence was one of strict liability, and the statutory defence, which applied where the presence of foreign matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of production, did not apply, because the presence of the caterpillar could have been avoided. Viscount Dilhorne questioned the value of prosecuting in such circumstances, where the company had taken all reasonable care, but the House held that the company was guilty.
Related cases on strict liability
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
- B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411
- 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
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.
