When a container is not a delivery vehicle
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A SUMMONS against Containerway and Roadferry LW, Tower Bridge Road, London, for using a contaminated container for carrying meat was dismissed by the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate last week.
The container, a hired one, had been loaded in Northern Ireland by the Fatstock Marketing Corporation for delivery in Manchester and Leeds. The company was prosecuted by Leeds City Council under Regulation 51 of the Food Hygiene (Market Stall and Delivery Vehicle) Regulations 1966. Evidence was given by an inspector of hygiene that on November 25, 1974, he examined the container and found the floor contaminated by adhesive tape, paper, brush bristle, jute string, fibres and road dirt.
Mr Jonathan Lawton, defending, submitted that the regulations under which the charge was made required a "delivery vehicle" to be kept clean and for this purpose a container was not a vehicle. There was no definition of "vehicle" in the regulations and consequently it should bear its ordinary meaning.
The prosecution argued that it was clear the regulation had in mind any method of mechanical transport used for the delivery of food. Containers were now the most common method of transporting meat and the object would be completely defeated if they were left outside.
Dismissing the charge, the Stipendiary Magistrate said that having heard the argument he had concluded a container was not a delivery vehicle, It was significant the regulations were made in 1966 when it was probably not realised the increasing use to which containers would be put. On the arguments and the law as it stood the prosecution could not succeed.