The Case of The Mulberry Tree Farm

1. The Eggs and Chicks Regulations came into force on the 14th September 2009 as shown in reg 1.

2.         The provision was signed on the 4th August 2009 by Jim Fitzpatrick, the minister of states of the department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

3.         Under the Introductory Text, one of the Acts which gave the Minister power to make Regulations was The Europeans Community Act 1972.

4.         Reg 7(1) allows eggs for hatching to be marked with an abstract black mark, except for a dot. The Commission Regulation (EC) No617/2008 issues the regulations that the mark must be indelible, clearly visible and at least 10 mm² in area. Considering this provision, Mulberry Tree Farm failed to meet the requirement as their mark only covered 9 mm². The marking of the eggs must be done before they are placed into the incubator as indicated in reg 7 (2). With this provision, Mulberry Tree Farm is not going to be permitted because of using a mark that that rubs off when touched.

5.         Reg 10(2) states that a period of 28 days is given by the Secretary of State to the             applicant beginning with the day after the day the Secretary of State receives the             application.

6.         Two of these mitigating factors that would be considered by the court in determining     the amount of a penalty under the Regulations is shown in Schedule 4 Part 2 –          Action taken to eliminate or reduce risk the damage resulting from the non-     compliance  and Action taken by P to repair the harm done by the non-compliance.

7.         (a)       Under reg38(1) Any notice given to any person must be in writing and may be            given to them by leaving it at their proper address. Due to the premises being   unoccupied when he arrived Kamil left a hand written notice addressed to the farm    owners. Reg 21 (3) requires an authorized officer to attach a notice to a conspicuous part of the premise containing information regarding the seized item. In this case, Kamil left the notice on the desk where the computer was situated. Under reg 21 (2), an authorized officer must indicate in writing what has been seized, when it was seized and the grounds for the seizer. For this case, Kamil meet all these regulations by giving the date when he took the computer and name of the item he took from the farm.

            (b)       Under reg21(2),  an authorized officer is required to state the grounds for the seizure of the item or equipment. Kamil did not explain in the notice to the owners his reason for seizing the computer, and although he included the date down on the notice as stipulated under reg 21 (2), he did not state the period which a claim may be made for the return of the computer.