Again where one deals with others and his mere negligence may be dangerous to them, as in selling diseased food or poison, the policy of the law may, in order to stimulate proper care, require the punishment of the negligent person though he be ignorant of the noxious character of what he sells.

But, although it has been said that in construing a modern statute a presumption as to mens rea does not exist

A butcher was convicted of selling unsound meat although he was unaware of the unsoundness and could not have discovered it by any examination which he could have been expected to make

The following decisions illustrate the point: A butcher was found guilty of a crime who sold adulterated food without knowledge of the fact that the food was diseased.

"And Kennedy LJ thought that in such a case the magistrate would not only inflict" a merely nominal fine, "but, also, that" under modem legislation,... he need not even convict at all when there is only a trifling breach of the law

Then it is said that this is a criminal offence and that we ought not to construe this section [as creating an absolute offence] because a criminal offence is committed which may involve imprisonment. The answer to that contention is that reliance may be placed upon the justices not to send a man to prison in a case where he did not know the meat was unsound

—a butcher suing for compensation in respect of unsound meat that had been destroyed was held to have been in default, and so barred from recovering, even though he had no reasonable means of discovering the condition of the meat: 65 “the policy of the Act is this: that if a man chooses for profit to engage in a business which involves offering for sale of that which …

—it was held that where meat intended for human consumption is exposed for sale and is condemned as unsound, the person in whose possession or on whose premises the meat is found is liable to conviction under the Public Health Act, 1875 (Imp.), c. 55, whether he is or is not aware of the unsoundness of the meat.

"But the penalties for witchcraft are heavy: two «(1924) 4 LBNB 193; accord: Wirumayi [1955] 8. R. 240. «'91 LJKB 93. "• Field, op. cit. tupra, not «18, passim. «•

Leading English cases developing a parallel theory of regulatory offenses similarly involved violations punishable only by fine or short-term incarceration.

[BOOK] Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine

[BOOK] Explaining Tort and Crime: Legal Development Across Laws and Legal Systems …