Sent Down For A Peanut?

scottjames30 wrote:Let's go champ, I was just trying to spread the word.

Aye and it took me best part of wasting twenty minutes of my life attempting to unspread most of it!

No more of this sort of thing please.

Get this shit off my thread.

Your thread was idiotic to begin with.

Champ

He'll appeal and that will probably be upheld and he'll be back home by he end of summer.
The law around vicarious liability ( which is behind a lot of this) is bad law as its almost impossible to apply. And its not the police who decide to go to Court or not- it's the CPS. I imagine that they felt that they had a watertight case before listing this one.

rammywhite wrote:He'll appeal and that will probably be upheld and he'll be back home by he end of summer.
The law around vicarious liability ( which is behind a lot of this) is bad law as its almost impossible to apply. And its not the police who decide to go to Court or not- it's the CPS. I imagine that they felt that they had a watertight case before listing this one.

This isn't a straightforward case of vicarious liability though, is it, Rammy?

As I've always understood it, if one of your staff goes off and does something stupid / dangerous even if it's "on a frolic of their own" and something bad happens, you can be held liable as the employer.

But in this case, the owner had knowingly compromised customer safety by substituting a dangerous ingredient for a harmless one to save on cost.

So he's squarely in the frame as this was his premeditated decision.

If his staff knew then they're in the frame too but ultimately, he was the one who made that conscious decision to put lives at risk.

There will be substantial grounds for appeal if there is some doubt that he was aware that his staff had substituted one product for another. Any decent lawyer will be able to sow sufficient doubt in the minds of the Lord Justices of Appeal about whether he was aware of it or not and actively participated in that particular decision.. That doubt will be sufficient to have the disposal overturned.. I still think there is sufficient doubt to make this a bad judgement. 

But we'll see in a few weeks.

I'm not so sure.

This one looks pretty water-tight to me.

He's massively in debt and it's been proved that he was cutting corners all over the place to mitigate his costs.

He's been caught out lying on the stand and they've proved that he knowingly substituted the dangerous ground-nut powder for the almond one but continued to pass it off as the kosher stuff.

he deserves a jail sentence, he knowingly swapped ingredients and started employing illegal untrained workers to make a saving but i am surprised with the length of his sentence to be honest

Reading the article he has several restaurants and more than one has been involved in this type of incident and the fact that he buys a potentially fatal ingredient to save a bit of money means the ultimate responsibility has to lie with him, and the fact that only fast action on a previous incident prevented the body count being 2 leads me to believe that 6 years is quite lenient.

Not long enough, you ever see anyone die like that and you would agree.