Success for Richard Wright QC and Howard Shaw in the Administrative Court
Park Square BarristersJudgment in the case of Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Limited v CPS has today been handed down by Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Mr Justice Jay sitting in the Administrative Court. The Appellant Company had appealed by case stated and brought linked judicial review proceedings in respect of the interpretation of EU and national regulations governing the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter.
Richard Wright QC and Howard Shaw acted for the Respondent, the CPS.
The Court agreed that the regulations create strict liability offences requiring no culpability on the part of the slaughterhouse operator, who is liable through the actions of its operatives.
The Court had heard detailed argument on the interpretation of the EU and national regulations and the principles governing mens rea, strict liability and culpability.
To view the administrative courts decision please click on the following links: Dismissal of application for Judicial Review, Judgment and Refusal of permission to appeal to Supreme Court.
Richard Wright Q.C. is Head of Chambers and is described as a “masterful silk” in Chambers & Partners (2018), where he is ranked Band One for Crime. He is also ranked as Tier 1 in the Legal 500 (2018). Richard’s regulatory practice covers a wide range of cases including food safety & hygiene, environmental waste, fire safety, health & safety breaches, and cases relating to transport regulations. He secured the conviction of restaurant owner Mohammed Zaman for Manslaughter by gross negligence, thought to have been the first such case involving food allergies.
Howard Shaw is Ranked as Tier 1 for Regulatory, Health and Safety and Licensing in The Legal 500 (2018), where he is described as “tenacious and extremely thorough. “Howard Shaw has been involved in several leading cases relating to issues in slaughterhouses – Riley v DPP [2016] EWHC 2531, confirmed that the CPS is the ‘prosecutor’ for the time limit provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006; Woodward [2017] EWHC 1008 confirms that the Prosecution can issue a second Prosecutor’s Certificate where the first is defective. In Najib [2018] EWCA 909, he successfully argued that DEFRA’s selection criteria for inclusion in the annual TSE monitoring programme was lawful.