Sentence for animal by-products offences

Animal carcass dealer David Nutt was ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work with a 12-month community order, by Wycombe magistrates on Wednesday (September 2) for two offences under animal by-product legislation.

The prosecution was brought by Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards under the Animal By Products (Enforcement)(England) Regulations 2013.

MrNutt, who ran an animal carcass collection transport businessat Well End Farm, Bourne End, had been earlier convicted of failing to notify the appropriate authority that he had ceased operations at the farm after he moved out in January 2014. He had pleaded not guilty.

The court heard that he should have told the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency he was ceasing business. The Agency keeps recordsof the location of all businesses supplying food processing plants in the interests of traceability and in the event of contamination or disease outbreak.

Mr Nuttwas also convicted of failing to produce documents to a Trading Standards officer when he was under a legal duty to maintain records and have them available for inspection on request.He had denied the charge.

The court was told thelegislation requires comprehensive records to be kept of the identification of animals, where they come from and where they’regoing, to ensure traceability. Mr Nutt failed to provide these records.

By committing theseoffences he breacheda suspended sentence imposed following conviction in 2013 for similar offences, and magistrates fined him£100 for the breach.

He was alsoordered to pay costs of £1,230 and a victims surcharge of £60. He was acquitted on a third charge alleging he failed to notify the Agency he had started operations from a site in Penn.

Martin Phillips, Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Public Health, said: ‘Following the horsemeat scandal, residents need to have confidence in the safety of the food we eat, which is why our trading standards team takes issues of food safetyvery seriously. This case demonstrates how vigilant we are and how thoroughly we investigate any allegation of infringement.’