SOS (Mowbray) Pty Ltd v Mead [1972] HCA 18

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer, Owen, Walsh and Gibbs JJ. SOS (Mowbray) Pty Ltd v Mead [1972] HCA 18

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1972, Feb. 29 Barwick C.J.

The appellant was convicted by a stipendiary magistrate in the Court of Petty Sessions at Launceston, upon the complaint of the respondent, Director of Agriculture in Tasmania, of two offences against the provisions of the Dairy Produce Act 1969 Tas (the Act). The offences were (a) that it did sell at Launceston cooking margarine to which there had been added a prohibited colouring substance, namely beta carotene, contrary to s. 6 of the Act and (b) that it did sell at Launceston cooking margarine to which there had been added a prohibited flavouring substance, namely aliphatic delta lactones of carbon chain length between six and fourteen contrary to s. 6 of the Act.

Section 6 of the Act is in the following terms:

No person shall, within the State, manufacture or sell cooking margarine to which there is or has been added any—

(a) prohibited colouring substance; or

(b) prohibited flavouring substance.

"Cooking margarine" is defined by s. 3 of the Act as:

margarine that contains beef fat or mutton fat, or beef fat and mutton fat, in a quantity of not less than ninety per cent by weight of the total quantity of fat and oil contained in the margarine.

"Prohibited colouring substance" is defined as:

(a) a colouring substance that is specified in Part I of the schedule; and

(b) any other colouring substance, that is declared by the regulations to be a prohibited colouring substance for the purposes of this Act.

"Prohibited flavouring substance" is defined as:

(a) a flavouring substance that is specified in Part II of the schedule; and