Food Standards Agency, R (on the application of) v Brent Justices & Anor

Under section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990, once a justice of the peace is satisfied that food fails to comply with food safety requirements, condemnation is mandatory. The justice has no discretion to release the food merely because it remains fit for human consumption or sale. Compliance with food safety requirements is the relevant question; palatability and fitness for consumption are immaterial.

A justice acting under section 9 is acting as a magistrates’ court for the purposes of the wide statutory provisions governing statements of case. Where reasons have been supplied, the High Court may review them and grant declaratory relief without requiring a case to be stated.

An authorised officer detained meat under section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 because it was not health-marked in accordance with the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. The officer later determined that the meat did not comply with food safety requirements and referred it to a justice of the peace.

The District Judge accepted that the meat failed to comply with those requirements but considered that section 9(6) gave her a discretion not to condemn it because the defect concerned labelling rather than fitness for human consumption. She refused to state a case, considering that she was exercising an administrative rather than judicial function. The Food Standards Agency sought judicial review and declaratory relief.

1. The court had jurisdiction to scrutinise the District Judge’s reasons because her decision was made in the exercise of a public function amenable to judicial review. Since written reasons had been supplied, a case need not be stated before declaratory relief could be granted.

2. A justice acting under section 9 is a magistrates’ court within section 148(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The words of section 111(1), including “proceeding”, “determination” and “decision”, are sufficiently wide to include the section 9 procedure. The District Judge could therefore have been required to state a case on the legal issue.

3. Section 9 creates a sequence of mandatory steps. Under section 9(4), once the authorised officer is not satisfied that the food complies with food safety requirements, he must seize it and bring it before a justice. His decision is concerned with statutory compliance, not with the food’s palatability or fitness for human consumption.

4. Under section 9(6), where it appears to the justice, on the basis of appropriate evidence, that the food fails to comply with food safety requirements, the justice “shall” condemn it and make the orders required by subsection (6)(a) and (b). The reference in subsection (7) to the justice refusing to condemn food means no more than that the food is not condemned; it does not confer a discretion inconsistent with subsections (4) and (6).

5. The court granted a declaration that, in those circumstances, the justice is required to condemn the food and has no discretion to do otherwise.

The judgment itself records that the Food Standards Agency first sought to require the District Judge to state a case after she refused to do so. Following the provision of written reasons, the Administrative Court determined the legal issue by judicial review and granted declaratory relief.