HL Deb 03 December 1926 vol 65 cc1151-2

Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert: ("Provided that in any proceedings under this section if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was due to a bonâ fide mistake or accident, in spite of all reasonable precautions being taken and all due diligence exercised by the defendant to prevent the occurrence of such offence, or the offence was due to the action of some person over whom the defendant had no control, the defendant shall be discharged from the prosecution.")

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Lords, although this Amendment appears to be a long one it is to meet a very small point. In subsection (3) of Clause 1 provision is made regarding penalties, and what I will now ask your Lordships to approve is an Amendment to the effect that where, I will not say a technical offence, but an offence, has been apparently committed under the Act, it will be possible for the commission agent to show that such offence was in fact no moral turpitude but was due to a bona fide mistake or accident. In such cases it is provided that the defendant shall be discharged from the prosecution. The words I ask your Lordships to agree to have already been introduced by your Lordships into the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Bill which passed through this House last summer. I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in the said Amendment.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.