§ 181 — Supplying falsely described food — strict liability

181.—(1) A person commits an offence if the person, in the course of carrying on a food business —

(a)

supplies to another person food that is packed or labelled in a way that falsely describes the food; or

(b)

supplies food to another person and gives that person a false warranty for the food.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction —

(a)

where the person is an individual — to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both; or

(b)

where the person is not an individual — to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) —

(a)

it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that a person charged knew or had reason to believe that the food is falsely described, or that the warranty is false, as the case may be; but

(b)

it is a defence to the charge for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person charged —(i)

did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the food was falsely described when supplied; or

(ii)

when giving the warranty, had reason to believe that the assertions or statements contained in the warranty were true.

—(1) A person commits an offence if the person, in the course of carrying on a food business —

(a)

supplies to another person food that is packed or labelled in a way that falsely describes the food; or

(b)

supplies food to another person and gives that person a false warranty for the food.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction —

(a)

where the person is an individual — to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both; or

(b)

where the person is not an individual — to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) —

(a)

it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that a person charged knew or had reason to believe that the food is falsely described, or that the warranty is false, as the case may be; but

(b)

it is a defence to the charge for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person charged —(i)

did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the food was falsely described when supplied; or

(ii)

when giving the warranty, had reason to believe that the assertions or statements contained in the warranty were true.