Northumberland County Council v PR Manufacturing Ltd.

Where goods fail an ignitability test conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations and British Standard, the statutory prohibition on supplying non-compliant goods is engaged. A different result from another test does not, by itself, undermine the prosecution test. It may do so only if the evidence establishes a procedural failure, such as testing material of a different density or specification. Findings that the prosecution test complied with the regulations and that the supplier breached the relevant requirement are inconsistent with dismissal of the resulting criminal charge. A court determining a case stated must identify the main contentious issues and explain how they were resolved.

The Council appealed by way of case stated from the decision of the South East Northumberland Justices, who acquitted PR Manufacturing Limited on two charges under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The charges concerned the supply of cushions containing crumb foam which allegedly failed the ignitability test required by the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.

The prosecution test was conducted by BTTG Wiratec. The respondent relied on later tests of other cushions conducted by West Yorkshire Materials Testing Service, using a different method of calculating density. The central questions concerned the reliability and legal effect of the competing tests, the relevance of the later cushions, and the Justices’ reasons for rejecting the prosecution evidence.

1. Appeal by case stated allowed in part and matter remitted. The verdicts of not guilty were set aside and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Bench for a new trial.
2. Regulation 6(2)(b) of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 prohibited furniture containing crumb foam unless the foam passed the specified ignitability test. Regulation 15(1) prohibited the supply of furniture in respect of which any regulatory requirement was not satisfied. Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 made breach of that prohibition a criminal offence, subject to the due diligence defence in section 39.
3. The Justices had found that the BTTG Wiratec tests were performed in accordance with the 1988 Regulations and British Standard 5852: Part 2, and that the respondent had failed to comply with regulation 6(2)(b). Those findings necessarily engaged regulation 15(1) and section 12(1). It was therefore an error of law to conclude that the test result could not be relied on and to dismiss the informations.
4. A different result from a later test did not itself establish that the prosecution test was unreliable. Evidence from another test could establish a procedural failure only if it showed, for example, that the material tested differed in density or specification from the supplied product. The alternative test could have been relevant if supported by evidence that the foam came from the same batch and that the cushions had been filled to the same density. The Justices were entitled to find, although the evidence was thin, that the foam came from the same batch. That finding did not cure the inconsistency in their other findings.
5. The Justices were not entitled to compare the prosecution test with subsequent testing of a different cushion where continuity with the prosecuted goods had not been proved.
6. Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the application of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a fair trial requires reasons. In a case stated, the reasons may be found in the stated case and must identify the main contentious issues and explain how they were resolved.

High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the South East Northumberland Justices dated 23 May 2003. The High Court set aside the acquittals and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Bench for a new trial.