|
"The Officers of the Tendring District Council have duties
under a number of UK Food Hygiene Regulations and other EU
legislation. These duties include enforcement action". The policy
stated here is based upon the principle that the application of
enforcement powers should be fair and consistent, and should be
based upon an assessment of the risks to public health. The purpose
of any enforcement is to ensure that food is safe to eat.
The method of enforcement within food premises in Tendring District
is detailed in the Framework Agreement which is the Food Safety
Plan for enforcement for the current year
Food Safety Framework Agreement 2011 - 2012.
1. The primary responsibility for ensuring food safety lies with
those who operate food businesses; in particular food business
operators need to recognise their responsibility for food
safety.
2. Tendring District Council's approach to enforcement reflects
the responsibilities laid upon the Council by relevant Food Hygiene
Regulations and the range of powers that regulations have made
available.
3. Depending on particular circumstances, the Council may use a
variety of means to ensure that proprietors meet their
responsibilities. The Council's options include education, advice,
guidance, warning letters, formal cautions, improvement and
emergency prohibition notices or prosecutions. The Council will
generally reserve prosecutions (criminal proceedings) for the more
serious offences which either resulted, or could have resulted, in
serious injury or ill-health, or which represented a blatant
disregard by employers, employees, or others of their
responsibilities under food safety legislation.
Enforcing food safety law
4. The Council enforcement officers' primary concern is the
prevention of food-related illness and dangers. This is best
achieved by encouraging effective management of food safety by
those who create the risks. Enforcement officers seek to help
businesses improve their management of food safety by giving
guidance on safe food handling. They are a source of help on how
best to maintain good standards in conformity with the law, and
their guidance is usually followed.
5. Enforcement officers have to exercise considerable discretion
when approaching individual proprietors. Most proprietors are, in
the Council's experience, anxious to comply with the law, and a
growing number realise the economic benefits of good food safety
management.
In such cases an enforcement officer's role will often be to
guide and support. However, in carrying out their functions, duly
authorised enforcement officers have a range of powers and may, for
example, in certain circumstances seize foods which contravene the
legislation.
If enforcement officers find evidence that the law is being (or
has been) broken, they can respond in various ways. They may
instruct or warn by letter, they may issue emergency prohibition
notices or improvement notices requiring immediate prohibition of
the operation of a process or the use of premises or compliance
within a specified time, or they may prosecute.
Notices are effective and quick and require proprietors to put
dangerous situations right, without the delay and uncertainty of
going to court. For these reasons, enforcement officers issue a
number of notices every year. However, if the circumstances warrant
it, they will prosecute without any prior warnings and without any
recourse to alternative sanctions.
6. In keeping with its preventive role, a Local Authority may
use prosecution as a way to draw attention to the need for
compliance and the maintenance of good standards. Enforcement
officers investigating breaches of the law consider the potential
of those breaches to cause harm, as well as considering any harm
actually caused. Thus the Council may seek prosecution if a breach
has significant potential for harm, regardless of whether it has
caused an injury.
7. In all instances, the Council will have regard to the
approved Codes of Practice issued by or under the authority of the
Secretary of State in determining the most appropriate course of
action to take.
8. In deciding whether to prosecute the Council will consider
the following factors:
(a) the seriousness of the alleged offence;
(b) the previous history of the party concerned;
(c) the likelihood of the defendant being able to establish a
due diligence defence;
(d) the ability and willingness of any important witnesses to
co-operate;
(e) whether the evidence available provides a realistic prospect
of conviction (in this respect the Council is guided by the Code
for Crown Prosecutions published by the Crown Prosecution
Service);
(f) the willingness of the alleged offender to prevent a
recurrence of the problem;
(g) the probable public benefit of a prosecution and the
importance of the case - e.g., whether it might establish legal
precedent for other companies or for other geographical areas;
(h) whether other action, such as issuing a simple caution in
accordance with Home Office Circular 016/2008, or an improvement
notice, or imposing a prohibition, would be more appropriate or
effective. (It is possible in exceptional circumstances to
prosecute as well as issuing a notice; failure to comply with a
notice would be an additional offence);
(i) any explanation offered by the affected company.
9. The decision to proceed with a court case rests with the
Council itself.
The prosecution of individuals
10. The Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 allow for the
prosecution of individuals who have committed a food safety
offence. The Council's policy is to identify and prosecute
individuals if a conviction is warranted and can be secured, but a
food safety offence is often the result of the negligent or
ignorant acts of more than one person. This means that it is
difficult to prove a link between some incidents and individual
directors, managers and employees. However, a local authority have
the option of taking a case against a food business, i.e. a limited
company or partnership, instead of a named individual, and will
seek to do so where the circumstances justify it.
Penalties
11. Penalties have to be commensurate with the offences. The
Food Safety Act 1990 make provision for this, providing for an
unlimited fine with up to two years imprisonment for the most
serious offences.
|
11(a) Offences dealt with in magistrates'
courts |
Maximum penalty |
|
Section 33(1): Obstruction etc. of officers. |
£5,000 or three months imprisonment or both. |
|
Section 7: Rendering food injurious to health; Section 8:
Selling food not complying with food safety requirements; Section
14: selling food not of the nature, substance or quality
demanded. |
£20,000 or six months imprisonment or both. |
|
All other offences under the Food Safety Act 1990. |
£5,000 or six months imprisonment or both |
|
11(b) Offences dealt with in crown
courts |
Maximum penalty |
|
For all Offences detailed in 11(a) above. |
Unlimited fine or two years imprisonment or
both. |
Consistence of enforcement standards between local
authorities
12. National arrangements exist for co-ordination on enforcement
standards between local authorities. The Local Authorities
Coordinating Body on Regulatory Services (LACORS) provides a forum
for the development of consistent national advice and training for
all local authorities on enforcement issues.
If you have a specific query about food safety, or if you wish
to report a food safety matter, please contact the Food Team: -
e-mail
environmental.services@tendringdc.gov.uk
Address: Tendring District Council, Environmental Services,
Council Offices, Weeley, CO16 9AJ
Tel: 01255 686767 |