North Yorkshire Trading Standards Regulatory Services, R (on the application of) v Nicholson

For an alleged failure to dispose of an animal by-product without undue delay, the prosecution need prove that the carcase was in the defendant’s possession or control; it need not prove actual or constructive knowledge of its presence. Whether delay is undue is a question of fact. Evidence that a carcase had remained on the defendant’s land for two or three days could, in the circumstances, support a case to answer. Expert evidence about the date of death or animal husbandry was not essential. A case to answer is not a finding of guilt, and the defendant remains entitled to rely on all relevant matters at trial.

The claimant trading standards authority appealed by way of case stated after Selby justices dismissed three informations against a farmer on the basis of no case to answer. The informations alleged breaches of article 5(1) of the Animal By-Products Order 1999, concerning sheep carcases found on land controlled by the defendant. The justices considered that the prosecution needed expert evidence about the date of death and good animal husbandry, and that the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not culpable.

The central issues were whether possession or control required proof of knowledge, whether expert evidence was necessary, and whether the evidence could support an allegation of undue delay.

1. The appeal was allowed. The case was remitted to the Selby justices to hear and determine the three charges to which the photographs related. The defendant’s magistrates’ court costs order was set aside, and he was ordered to pay £2,000 costs of the appeal.
2. Article 5(1) of the Animal By-Products Order 1999 required sufficient evidence that the carcase was an animal by-product, that it was in the defendant’s possession or control, and that there had been undue delay in consigning or disposing of it.
3. Possession or control did not require proof that the owner of the land knew that the carcase was present. The carcases were on the defendant’s land and that was sufficient evidence of possession or control for the purpose of a case to answer.
4. Whether delay was undue was a question of fact. The prosecution’s photographic evidence, showing partly decomposed carcases that had been present for approximately two or three days, was capable of supporting an inference of undue delay. Expert evidence concerning the precise date of death was not indispensable.
5. The justices had misunderstood the relevance of the DEFRA guidance if they treated it as meaning that a landowner need not inspect livestock. On the evidence, a reasonable bench could not conclude that there was no case to answer.
6. The court emphasised that a case to answer is not a finding of guilt. On resumption of the prosecution, the defendant remained entitled to advance any relevant matters.

• Selby Justices dismissed the three informations on a submission of no case to answer on 30 July 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the case-stated appeal and remitted the charges to the justices to hear and determine according to the evidence.