CARRYING MEAT INTO SHOPS

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27709, 13 July 1955, Page 10

CARRYING MEAT INTO SHOPS

REGULATION ON HEAD COVERING

BUTCHERY FIRM APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION

What was described by counsel as a test case taken by the master butchers came before Mr Justice Henry in the Supreme Court yesterday when Newmarket Butcheries. Ltd.; appealed against a conviction for a breach of the Food Hygiene Regulations. His Honour reserved his decision.

Mr R. A. Young appeared for the appellant company, and the Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) for the Health Department. The appeal was by way,of rehearing. , v ! Mr Erown said that the defendant company was charged With an alleged breach of the Food'Hygiene Regulations. The evidence was that an inspector employed by the Health Department saw an employee' of a meatcarrying firm carry a carcase bf mutton into' the defendant’s shop about 7 a.m. on February 23. He had no head covering and the meat was in contact with his hair. The inspector saw the occupier of the shop and he said he bad not these head coverings to give to the men carrying the meat. Evidence on those lines was given by Ronald Walker Connor, an inspector for the Health Department. William Frederick De Roo, an inspector for the Health Department, said he was present at a meeting convened bv the department about the end of 1952 when the question of a head covering was discussed with the master butchers. The department had a sample head covering for demonstration. The butchers queried it because of possible injury to a worker using the head covering. It was explained to them that it was their duty to evolve one if they considered the department's one not satisfactory, and have their one approved. The Defence ! Mr Young said the case was taken as a test one by the master butchers to see where they stood in respect to the regulatidhs and this headgear. In Christchurch the practice was for meat to be delivered in suitable vehicles from the freezing works br abattoirs to shops. The employees of the carrying company carried the carcases from the van into the shops. They wore overalls and had muslin cloth round their necks and a cap on their heads I so that the meat did not come into : contact with their skin. The head covering produced at the meeting with • the department was of the Foreign| Legion style and the men would not i wear it because it was a danger to j them when carrying meat. If a heavy , carcase slipped, it would pull down on the long drapes of this headgear! and drag their head to one side. The i department was asked to take a morel realistic view and modify the head-; gear. Mr Young said that as nothing was done from October. 1952, to February ■ of this year there was no headgear approved within the meaning of the regu- i lations. It was for the department to bring down a model headgear and formally say it was the approved wear. That would make it a requirement under the regulations. On February 23 there was not an approved head-; g£ar in existence and so the prosccu-| tion failed. Peter Wood Sim. managing director; of the defendant company, gave evi-! dence as outlined by Mr Young. He told his Honour that the man who i carried the meat from the van into I the shop also carried it from the! abattoir to the van. but the regulations did not say he must wear a headcovering in the latter instance. • His Honour said he proposed to read the whole of the regulations before he gave his decision.