The court held that P had standing but the challenge failed on its merits. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Alcohol abuse: see (1884), consumer prCundy v Le Cocqotection: see Smedleys Ltd v Breed(1974), misuse of drugs: see Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), road safety, prevention of pollution: see Alphacell Ltd. v Woodward (1972), underage gambling: see London Borough of Harrow v Shah and Shah (1999). Advs and Disadvs of lay magistrates - Life Sciences bibliographies - Cite This For Me. But they certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in their decision, namely: section 3(3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. how to cook atama soup with waterleaf The defendants had instituted and maintained a satisfactory system for the random sampling of tins of peas at the end of the canning process so that they could be checked for quality control. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. She was not, however, to know this, and with commendable civic zeal, she felt it her duty to report the matter to the local authority, and in consequence, grinding slow, but exceeding small, the machinery of the law was set in inexorable motion. Looking for a flexible role? Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. On the other hand, the appellants gave the fullest and most candid account of their processes which led the Magistrates to conclude that they, Thus, if the question certified by the Divisional Court were to be answered, Request a trial to view additional results, Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP and Soon Seng Sia Heng v PP and PP v Chea Soon Hoong and Teh Cheng Poh v PP, Vehicle Inspectorate v Sam Anderson (Newhouse) Ltd, A Right to Assist? 2Horder, J., Two histories and four hidden principles of mens rea, L.Q.R. The defendant punched a mother holding her baby. smedleys v breed 1974 case summarydetoxify ready clean reviews 2020 smedleys v breed 1974 case summary. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. Alphacell Ltd v Woodward - e-lawresources.co.uk The vet said it was fine and so he sold it. The legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. Stephen J stated: Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied comes within that category.

Xef6 Point Group, Articles S