The core purpose of this case was to check on how easy it would be when accessing the information on the hygiene standards of eating places that are open to the public. Through the Freedom of information Act 2000, all food places in South Wales had been required to provide information regarding their eating joints. This information would be assessed to determine how useful it would be for an individual who needs to get information about the food joints.
On occasion, one local authority refused to disclose the information despite intervention by the Freedom of information Act Commissioner. The information released was variable because it was through inspection of and a written report that was incomplete, illegible. The reports from the food joints failed to give clear information involving the food place. Through the inspection period of the food places, the commissioner of the FOI Act appeared through the retail sellers of food where there is a high likelihood of consumption of food. They collected data from the retailers through the questionnaires conducted orally. (Sheffner, 2020). Some retailers seem to be biased to release the information about the hygiene requirements about the food they cook, hence making it hard for the researchers from the regulatory authority to get accurate information that would be reliable. Following the above challenge of inaccurate information from the food retailers, the FOI Act commissioner had to change its collecting data and collecting samples from the real consumers. They have had a chance of consuming food there.
The researchers used face-to-face questioning techniques and observation to obtain data about food hygiene. For them to get accurate information about food hygiene, they carried some food samples, which were to be examined to ascertain that the food joint was maintaining hygiene standards. From the information they gathered, they noticed that most consumers said that after eating the food from the food place, they developed stomach problems for about 72 hours. Some consumers even provided deeper information where they said that after taking the food, they started developing skin rashes. The researchers visited the nearest hospital to ascertain claims from the consumers about the problems they stated. They were allowed to visit the records with the help of the doctors. The report from the record showed that most people who visited the hospital that month were being diagnosed with stomach problems. Due to the reports released, the Commissioner of FOI Act had to conclude that the food place was acting unprofessionally due to a lack of hygiene standards. In the ruling, it was agreed that the food place should seize its operations.
Another thing that led to its closure is that they were never willing to give information involving hygiene of the food place. The decision from the Commissioner was not accepted because the food place felt that it was an unfair decision. Due to lack of satisfaction, the two parties were now heading to a court of law to seek intervention about the decision made earlier by the FOI Act Commissioner.
The case began at the trial court, where both parties presented their issues. Both the accuser and the defendant had their team of lawyers who were there to represent the interests of their parties. During the case, the regulatory authority was the one to present their allegations against Swazi distributors. (Mizen,2018). The allegations stated that the company had been found acting unethically; hence it was required that they had to give information regarding the procedures and ingredients they use in preparing their meals.
According to FIO Commissioner, some of their products had not met the required standards, so they were considered unhealthy for human consumption. In a situation where the food place does not honour the Freedom of Information Act, it is considered to act against the law. The accusers’ side had allegations that the company was in the process of interfering with the evidence found. In trying to interfere with the evidence, the food place would make it difficult for the court to have the case determined reasonably. Lack of giving out information about hygiene status of the food place was considered unethical. For this reason, the regulatory authority was requesting the court to give out a court order that would ensure the company hands over all the required information.
On the defendant’s side, they were on a tough corner because they had acted against the constitution and were cooking substandard and unhygienic food. In their defence, they said that it was wrong to declare their products harmful because they had acquired all the necessary documentation before starting any activity in the food joint. The food place also said that they were not in a position to give out the information about their cooking procedure because it was to put them at risk of competition with other competitors in the same industry who, in the process, would end up copying them. The defence team also argued that considering their products harmful was an act of malice, and all this was meant to paint a bad picture for them.
After listening to both parties, the court had to make its final decision. The court ruled out that the food place acted against the constitution when they refused to give out information regarding the hygiene status of the food place. According to the ruling by the judge it was agreed that for the Commissioner of FOI Act authority to ascertain that they were maintaining hygiene standards, they must give all the information required so that it can be investigated whether the products are safe or not. In my opinion the decision by the court was appropriate because it had given both parties time to ascertain their truth.
References:
Sheffner, D. J. (2020). The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): A Legal Overview. Congressional Research Service.
Mizen, A. R. (2018). Investigating the impact of GIS modelled daily exposures to the retail food environment on routinely linked child health data.
write