CPS News Brief

Two charged over the traceability of horsemeat

Sue Patten, Head of Fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

"Following a joint investigation by the Food Standards Agency, Dyfed Powys Police and Calderdale Council, criminal proceedings have been instituted against two individuals for failing to comply with the traceability requirements of horses slaughtered at and sold from premises in Todmorden, West Yorkshire.

"It is alleged that Peter Boddy, owner of a West Yorkshire slaughterhouse and game dealer, and David Moss, the manager of the slaughterhouse, failed to comply with traceability requirements for horses slaughtered at their premises, contrary to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004. They are charged with two counts of this offence between 1 July 2012 and 12 February 2013. In addition, David Moss is charged with one count of forgery relating to an allegedly falsified invoice for the sale of horse meat. This offence is contrary to s.1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

"The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It has been determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"The case was heard administratively this morning but none of the defendants attended court. All individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Background

• Regulations applied to the food industry indicate that a product should have traceability from the field of the farm the animal grazed on right through to when it arrives on the plate of the final consumer. The traceability principles indicate that at each stage of the process the Food Business Operator should be able to provide details of its movement i.e. where the animal came from and to whom it was supplied.

• The Crown Prosecution Service continues to liaise with the City of London Police on a separate fraud investigation. We await final materials before being able to make a charging decision.

• It is not alleged that this horse meat was being sold as another meat.

Two charged over the mislabelling of goat meat

Sue Patten, Head of Fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following a joint investigation by the Food Standards Agency, Dyfed Powys Police and Ceredigion Council, criminal proceedings have been instituted against two individuals and a company in relation to the alleged mislabelling of goat meat products intended for sale.

"It is alleged that on or about 12 February 2013, Dafydd Raw-Rees, the owner and Food Business Operator of Farmbox Meats Limited in Aberystwyth and Colin Patterson, the company representative, mislabelled goat meat as either lamb or mutton for the purposes of sale. They are to be charged with 19 offences contrary to s.15(1) of the Food Safety Act 1990 and one offence of failing to comply with traceability requirements of meat sold by the company, contrary to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004.

"This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It has been determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"The case was heard administratively this morning but none of the defendants attended court. All individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 April 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Background

• Regulations applied to the food industry indicate that a product should have traceability from the field of the farm the animal grazed on right through to when it arrives on the plate of the final consumer. The traceability principles indicate that at each stage of the process the Food Business Operator should be able to provide details of its movement i.e. where the animal came from and to whom it was supplied.

• The Crown Prosecution Service continues to liaise with the City of London Police on a separate fraud investigation. We await final materials before being able to make a charging decision.

CPS announces first prosecutions for female genital mutilation

The Director of Public Prosecutions has today announced the first ever prosecutions under the Female Genital Mutilation Act.

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“The CPS was asked to consider evidence in relation to this allegation of female genital mutilation (FGM) by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was alleged that following a patient giving birth in November 2012, a doctor at the Whittington Hospital, in London, repaired FGM that had previously been performed on the patient, allegedly carrying out FGM himself.

“Having carefully considered all the available evidence, I have determined there is sufficient evidence and it would be in the public interest to prosecute Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena for an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

“I have also determined that Hasan Mohamed should face one charge of intentionally encouraging an offence of FGM, contrary to section 44(1) of the Serious Crime Act (2007), and a second charge of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Dr Dharmasena to commit an offence contrary to S1 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003).

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Dr Dharmasena and Hasan Mohamed will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 April.

“May I remind all those concerned that these individuals have a right to a fair trial and it is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

This was the first time this case was considered by the CPS. We have also reached a decision in one other new case and in relation to three of the four cases being re-reviewed by the CPS, following previous decisions to take no further action.

After careful consideration of all the available evidence and other potential further lines of inquiry, we have determined there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction and that no further action should be taken in relation to these four cases.

1)      New case

This new potential case of FGM was referred to CPS London by police in December 2013. It was alleged that whilst abroad two parents had arranged for their daughter to be subjected to a type of female genital mutilation involving a small pinprick.

The potential victim was medically examined and there was no physical evidence that any procedure had been performed, this is not unusual when the alleged FGM is of the type described.

Neither the suspects nor the potential victim were UK nationals or permanent UK residents at the time of the alleged offence and, as a result, the suspects could not be prosecuted under the FGM Act for an act committed abroad. There is no evidence to suggest any offence has been committed in the UK.

We have determined there is insufficient evidence to charge the suspects with any other offences and that no further action should be taken in this case.

2)      Re-review

This case was re-reviewed after it was first investigated in February 2012, following which the police decided no further action should be taken.

It was alleged that the suspect contacted an FGM helpline after misunderstanding its purpose and instead rang the advertised number to request the circumcision of his two daughters.

In order to prosecute an individual for commissioning an offence under the FGM Act, the prosecution must be able to demonstrate that they have committed an act that goes further than simply preparing to commit the offence.

As a result of this case being re-reviewed, further investigative enquiries were undertaken to establish whether any additional evidence might be available to demonstrate this to the criminal standard.

No additional evidence came to light and we have determined that no further action should be taken, as there remains insufficient evidence to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction.

We are unable to provide further detail on the other two re-reviewed cases at this time.

Background

• Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been a specific criminal offence in England and Wales since 1985 when the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) was passed.

• The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) repealed and replaced the 1985 Act in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also made it an offence for UK nationals or permanent UK residents to carry out FGM abroad, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal. The maximum penalty was also increased from 5 years to 14 years imprisonment.

• Under section 1(1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003) a person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.

• As of 21 March, the CPS is considering four cases of alleged FGM, one of which is a re-review of a case that was previously been considered and a decision was made that no further action should be taken. We have also had preliminary discussions with police in relation to their investigations into two further cases, which are currently at an early stage.

• CPS submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on FGM in February. This written submission is available here.

Death of Jimmy Mubenga – Charging decisions following inquest

The Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed the evidence relating to the tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga in October 2010.

We had previously decided in July 2012 that no charges should be brought in relation to Mr Mubenga’s death. In accordance with a memorandum of understanding between prosecutors, coroners and the police, the case was reconsidered by the CPS following the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest. All new evidence from the inquest was taken into account during this review.

The detainee custody officers

In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision now is that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

All three defendants were employed by G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited (G4S) as detainee custody officers at the time of Mr Mubenga’s death and were tasked with removing him from the United Kingdom to Angola. They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 7 April 2014.

Malcolm McHaffie, Deputy Head of CPS Special Crime, said:

“We have completed a fresh review of all of the evidence relating to the death of Jimmy Mubenga, including the new evidence arising from the inquest, and decided that three men should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

“There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig.

“Criminal proceedings are now underway and the defendants have a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited

The CPS also considered whether G4S should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. Because of the date and circumstances of this death, in this case the offence exists both at common law (law developed by the courts over time) and under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

To prove corporate manslaughter at common law, the CPS would require evidence capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that a ‘controlling mind’ in the corporation – such as the chief executive officer – was personally guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.

A prosecution under the 2007 Act would require proof to the criminal standard that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised was a cause of death and amounted to a gross breach of a duty of care towards the deceased. Additionally, this offence would only be made out if it could also be proved that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised by its senior management was a substantial element in the gross breach.

In considering potential corporate offences by G4S, the training available to (and undertaken by) its staff has been taken into account. In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute G4S for either offence and, due to the fact that related proceedings are now active, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

We will be writing to the family of Mr Mubenga to explain our decision making, to offer a meeting should they so wish and again offer our condolences.

Notes to editors

• The inquest jury was not asked to determine whether specific criminal offences had been committed by particular individuals. Legal advice should be sought before linking the verdict of the inquest with any individual.
• Colin Kaler is 51 and from Bedfordshire; Terrence Hughes is 53 and from Hampshire; Stuart Tribelnig is 38 and from Surrey.
• The defendants are charged with unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter as alternatives. There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction with regards to both offences and a jury will decide whether either offence was committed.