Peanut allergy leads to
conviction of Manslaughter
Eating establishments must be
very careful to provide training and supervision to their staff as to the
ingredients used in their meals. The
tragic case of R v Zaman illustrates the possible consequence of failing to do
so.
Dafydd Roberts, criminal and
regulatory solicitor for Gamlins Law comments that ‘the
duty is firmly placed on the restaurant, café or pub to get it right; the
consequence of not informing your customers of any particular ingredient to which
they are allergic can be tragic to the customer and also very serious for the
proprietor and management’.
R v Zaman
On 30 January 2014, Paul Wilson was found
dead at his home in North Yorkshire. He had spent the afternoon drinking with a
friend, before buying a takeaway meal from the Indian Garden Restaurant,
Easingwold, which he took home and started to eat. Mr Wilson suffered from an
allergy to peanut. The waiter from whom he had ordered the meal had
specifically stated that it contained no nuts. Unfortunately, the meal
contained substantial amounts of peanut, causing Mr Wilson anaphylactic shock,
which ultimately led to his unfortunate death.
The Appellant Mohammed Khalique Zaman owned the restaurant. On 23 May 2016 in the Crown Court at Teesside he was found guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Wilson (together with a further six charges of contravening various food safety requirements. The Defendant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
Mr Zaman later appealed against his sentence to the Court of Appeal in London. The Appeal Court has now held that the mitigation of Mr Zaman’s hard and successful work has necessarily to be discounted by the fact that his working practices were not short of appalling, and in any event any mitigation has to be balanced against aggravating factors.
‘In our view, Mr Zaman’s negligence in this case was not just gross; his behaviour, driven by money, was appalling. Given the very serious aggravating factors, even though the Appellant was a man of good character, we are wholly unpersuaded that a sentence of six years after a trial was manifestly excessive or, indeed, excessive at all’. The sentence therefore will stand.
The Appellant Mohammed Khalique Zaman owned the restaurant. On 23 May 2016 in the Crown Court at Teesside he was found guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Wilson (together with a further six charges of contravening various food safety requirements. The Defendant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
Mr Zaman later appealed against his sentence to the Court of Appeal in London. The Appeal Court has now held that the mitigation of Mr Zaman’s hard and successful work has necessarily to be discounted by the fact that his working practices were not short of appalling, and in any event any mitigation has to be balanced against aggravating factors.
‘In our view, Mr Zaman’s negligence in this case was not just gross; his behaviour, driven by money, was appalling. Given the very serious aggravating factors, even though the Appellant was a man of good character, we are wholly unpersuaded that a sentence of six years after a trial was manifestly excessive or, indeed, excessive at all’. The sentence therefore will stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment