Association of Independent Meat Suppliers & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Food Standards Agency

EU food-safety legislation does not confer a right to appeal against an official veterinarian’s expert decision that meat is unfit for human consumption or against refusal to apply a health mark. The statutory procedure for inspection and seizure of suspected food under section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 concerns food placed on, or intended to be placed on, the market and cannot be converted into an appeal mechanism for challenging that decision. The courts cannot create such an appeal through interpretation where this would contradict the scheme, cross constitutional boundaries or require substantial legislative amendment. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not itself create a right of appeal. The absence of an appeal was lawful because the scheme pursued public safety, operated according to law and struck a fair balance between public and private interests.

The claimants, a trade association and a slaughterhouse operator, challenged the Food Standards Agency’s refusal to provide a means of contesting an official veterinarian’s decision that a bull carcass was affected by generalised pyaemia and unfit for human consumption. The carcass was refused a health mark and required to be disposed of as an animal by-product.

The claimants argued that Regulation 25 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 applied the section 9 procedure, giving access to a Justice of the Peace. Alternatively, they relied on EU law, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR and article 17 of the EU Charter. The central issue was whether domestic or European law required an appeal against the official veterinarian’s decision.

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

1. EU scheme. Regulations 853/2004 and 854/2004 entrusted decisions concerning meat and health marking to the official veterinarian. The decision involved an expert, subjective judgment in which doubts were resolved against declaring meat fit for human consumption. A judicial appeal requiring a court to choose between competing veterinary opinions was inconsistent with that scheme.
2. Section 9 procedure. Regulation 25 applied section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 for the purposes of enforcing the domestic Regulations. It did not create a general appeal against an official veterinarian’s decision. Section 9 was directed to food inspected after sale, preparation for sale or placement on the market. A carcass refused a health mark had not been placed on the market and fell outside that scheme. Applying section 9 would also require substantial modifications, including transferring the decision from the official veterinarian to a Justice of the Peace.
3. Interpretation. The obligation to interpret domestic legislation consistently with EU law and the ECHR could not justify an interpretation contrary to the grain or cardinal features of the legislation, or one requiring courts to devise a complex appeal system. The European Regulations did not indicate that such an appeal was intended.
4. Property rights. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 required an effective challenge where domestic law provided an appeal, but did not itself require an appeal from an administrative decision. The disposal regime was lawful, pursued the public interest in food safety, and achieved an appropriate balance between consumers and meat suppliers.