61 / 264
GAZETTE
APRIL 1977
Appropriate powers are given in the Act for the
examination of samples of food and drink and the
carrying out of tests and analyses of these samples.
As with most of our modern statutes, extensive powers
are given to make Regulations and amongst these, are the
provisions relating to the enforcement and execution of
the Regulations by the appropriate officers as set out in
Section 59 of the Act, and the power to seize and destroy
offending items of foods which are conferred on
authorised officers or members of the Garda Siochana.
Authorised officers are defined in a later part of the Act
as:
(a) An officer of the Minister appointed in writing by the
Minister to be an authorised officer for the purposes
of this part of this Act.
(b) An officer of the Minister for Agriculture appointed
in writing by the Minister with the consent of the
Minister for Agriculture, to be an authorised officer
for the purposes of this part of this Act.
(c) The manager of a Health Authority.
(d) A Chief Medical Officer.
(e) An officer of a Health Authority appointed in writing
by the manager thereof to be an authorised officer for
the purposes of this part of this Act
(0 An officer of a Sanitary Authority appointed in writing
by the manager thereof to be an authorised officer for
the purposes of this part of this Act.
Offences under this Act are frequently committed by a
number of traders who handle the food in sequence. The
trader'last in possession is the one most vulnerable to
prosecution but it could be that he is the least
blameworthy. The Act, therefore, provides for a "by-
passing" procedure which enables the real offenders to be
brought before the Court and in certain circumstances
enables a person prosecuted to avoid conviction and even
to enable a person legally at risk, to avoid prosecution. I
quote the Section to which I refer, viz. S. 63, Sub.S. 1 (d)
and Sub.S. 2 and 3.
63 (1) (d) If the defendant in any prosecution for an
offence relating to the nature, substance, quality or
condition of any food proves —
(i) that he purchased such food as of a nature, sub-
stance or quality or in a condition which would
not have contravened such regulation and with a
written warranty to that effect, and
(ii) that he had no reason to believe at the time when
he sold such food that it was of a different nature
or quality or in a different condition, and
(iii) that he sold such food in the same state as when
he purchased it,
such defendant shall be discharged from the prosecu-
tion but shall be liable to pay the costs incurred by
the prosecutor unless he gave due notice to the
prosecutor that he proposed to rely on the said
defence.
63 (2) A statement by the manufacturer, importer or seller
of food as to its nature, substance, quality or condition
in an invoice or on a label attached to the food, or on
the packet or container in which the food is sold shall
be deemed for the purpose of subparagraph (i) of
paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section to be a
warranty.
63 (3) Where it appears to the authority or officer
enforcing any provision of this part of this Act or the
regulations made thereunder that an offence has been
committed in respect of which proceedings might be
taken against some person but that such person could
52
establish a defence under paragraph (d) of subsection
(1) of this section by proving that the offence
complained of was due to an act or default of some
other person, such authority or officer may take
proceedings against that other person without taking
proceedings against the first-mentioned person.
There is a school of thought which maintains that such
a defence is not necessary and that the Courts habitually
have regard to mitigating circumstances. It would seem
to be contrary to Natural Justice that an accused person
should be obliged to provide such information to the
prosecutor and be liable to pay costs when not actually
convicted.
One final point to be noted about this Act is that the
expression "food intended for sale for human
consumption" includes food kept in certain
establishments such as hotels, schools, hospitals, etc.,
specified by ministerial Regulation.
As we have seen the 1947 Act enabled the Minister for
Health to make Regulations for the better implementation
of the Statute, aftpr consultation with the Minister for
Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture.
Accordingly, the Food Hygiene Regulations 1950 came
into being and became operative on 15 February 1951.
The Food Hygiene Regulations 1950
The Regulations which are of a very comprehensive
nature, attempt to give effect to the provisions of the 1947
Act in the following areas, viz.:
(1) The sale of food unfit for human consumption; (2)
the importation of food unfit for human consumption; (3)
the taking of food samples; (4) the regulation of food
premises and stalls and the transport and handling of
food; (5) the registration of food premises and (6) the
manufacture of ice-cream and sale of shellfish.
Some of the powers of enforcement provided in these
Regulations are more effective than those we considered
earlier. For instance the local Chief Medical Officer is
empowered to make Orders prohibiting the importation of
food unfit for human consumption. An appeal lies
from this decision to a Justice of the District Court or a
Peace Commissioner.
The Regulations relating to the condition of food
premises govern such matters as cleanliness, ventilation,
lighting, washbasins, garbage disposals, conditions of
machinery and utensils, exposure of food, overalls, etc.,
similar provisions are made with regard to food stalls and
food vehicles.
It is noteworthy, and commendable, that the
Regulations govern not only the proprietor of the food
premises but the workers employed there and these are
directed to keep themselves clean and wear clean clothing,
maintain their utensils and machinery in clean condition
and to avoid unnecessary handling of food.
Indeed, even members of the public are forbidden to
engage in any unhygienic practices whilst in food
premises, so that presumably anyone suffering from the
common cold who enters the local supermarket can
render himself or more likely herself liable to a fine of
£20.
The Minister is given authority to direct that any
premises or stall shall not be used in connection with a
food business if he is of the opinion that there is grave and
immediate danger that the premises will cause food to be
contaminated.