University fights off ‘vindictive' prosecutors
A COURT case between Cambridge University and the town's environmental health officers (EHOs) is being proclaimed a landmark in helping establish the boundaries of due diligence for caterers.
The university was found not guilty of serving food unfit for human consumption under the Food Safety Act (1990), despite the fact that 56 out of 111 people became ill after a buffet dinner two years ago. Some 41 of those were found to be suffering from food poisoning caused by salmonella enteritidis phage type four, the UK's most common form of salmonella poisoning.
Paul Burnley, food safety solicitor with Leeds-based Eversheds, Hepworth & Chadwick, told Caterer the EHOs lost their case because they had insisted catering managers at the university should have instituted the full Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) system. In reality, however, only its general principles need be applied. "They were saying every procedure had to be written down, and that's simply not possible in a chef de partie system," he said.
The food poisoning incident took place at a buffet held in May 1992 at the University Centre, a club for post-graduates and former members of the university. According to Mr Burnley, it later transpired the last person to handle the food had been a symptomless carrier of the salmonella bacterium, which due diligence could not have revealed.
Mr Burnley, who acted for the university, said the case went a long way towards clarifying due diligence requirements, although a legal precedent could be established only in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.
"This case also shows that while the Government is trying to deregulate the industry, enforcement officers in the field are failing to get the message," he added, describing the prosecution as "aggressive and vindictive".
The six-week case was heard in Crown Court and could have led to unlimited fines for the university.
Geoffrey Hall, general manager of the University Centre, said he had faced "a remarkable and determined prosecution".
"When we called in the EHOs, we wanted to find out what on earth had gone wrong, but it seems they were interested only in prosecution," he said. "One rogue incident in a 27-year unblemished history is not enough to go for prosecution."
But Cambridge City council said it stood by its decision to prosecute. "Generally we take a very proactive, advisory role, but on this occasion we perceived an offence had been committed," said Ian Foulkes, assistant head of environmental health.
