Martin, R. v

For the licensing scheme under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995, food is ready to eat if it can be consumed without further treatment or processing. A need merely to leave frozen cooked food to defrost does not amount to treatment or processing. Nor does ready to eat mean capable of immediate consumption. Cooked food requiring only thawing is therefore ready-to-eat food rather than raw meat.

A sentence will not be disturbed without evidence that a fine exceeds the offender’s means or is manifestly excessive. A costs order turns on whether the costs were reasonable. Legal-aid scale fees may assist that assessment, but do not impose a separate or conclusive rule.

The applicant conducted a butcher’s business without the licence required by the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995. Environmental health officers found unwrapped raw meat for sale and frozen cooked seafood. The issue was whether the frozen seafood was ready-to-eat food, notwithstanding that it required defrosting before consumption.

At Snaresbrook Crown Court, after a ruling that the premises were a butcher’s shop within Schedule 1A, the applicant pleaded guilty. He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £4,660 prosecution costs. He challenged the ruling and sought leave to appeal against the fine and costs order.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. There was no arguable basis to interfere with the ruling on which the guilty plea was entered.
2. The court held that frozen cooked prawns and fish were ready-to-eat food under Schedule 1A to the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995. The need to remove food from a freezer and leave it to defrost was not treatment or processing. The phrase did not require food to be capable of being eaten immediately. The food was fully prepared apart from warming up and was plainly not raw meat.
3. The definitions created the relevant alternatives: raw meat was meat which was not ready-to-eat food, while ready-to-eat food was food for consumption without further treatment or processing. The applicant’s contrary interpretation was therefore untenable. Hodder v DPP and Matthews v DPP [1990] Crim LR 261, although concerned with different statutory language, supported the conclusion that freezing and defrosting were not acts of preparation.
4. The £3,000 fine was neither shown to be beyond the applicant’s means nor manifestly excessive. Reference to gross profit did not establish error in the absence of evidence about the applicant’s assets or inability to pay.
5. The costs order also stood. The sentencing judge applied the correct question: whether the prosecution costs were reasonable. Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council [2000] EWHC Admin 319 treated legal-aid scale fees as a useful marker for legal costs, but it was not directly analogous to substantial environmental-health-officer costs and did not create a separate rule. Nothing showed that the judge’s assessment of reasonableness was unreasonable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2006] EWCA Crim 109, the court found no arguable basis to disturb the ruling that the frozen cooked seafood was ready-to-eat food and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 27 April 2005, following a ruling that the premises were a butcher’s shop within Schedule 1A to the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995, the applicant pleaded guilty. He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £4,660 costs.