Blue Chi’s

Bubba Sparxxx is probably the best rapper you have never heard of, he is the guy that sang “Ugly” with Timbaland. This is his second album that was released late in 2003. Incidentally I found him popping up occasionally with Timbaland, Tweet and Kiley Dean, so I decided to check him out. His second album is a really fresh experience that has completely no relationship with what you might expect when you think ‘hip hop’. Bubba Sparxxx is a decent singer, but Timbaland is A GREAT producer, I heard this album initially for nothing but the great beats of Timbaland, but I ended up loving almost all the tracks of the album, even the ones which Timbaland had no contribution to (eg. Back In The Mud). After downloading this album I decided to add it to my all time favourites so I had to order it online. (sadly Bubba Sparxxx is not so popular to find any of his CDs in stores anywhere outside the US!)

Album Title: Deliverance
Release Date: Spetember 2003

Track List:

1. Intro – Big Rube
2. Jimmy Mathis
3. Comin’ Round
4. She Tried
5. Nowhere *MY FAVOURITE TRACK OF THIS ALBUM!, FEATURING KILEY DEAN, THERE IS AN UNDERGROUND VERSION OF THE SONG THAT FEATURES THE CHORUS OF JUSTIN’S “CRY ME A RIVER” WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY TIMBALAND AS WELL!*
6. Overcome
7. Warrant (Interlude)
8. Warrant
9. New South
10. Deliverance
11. Hootnanny
12. Take a Load Off
13. Like It or Not – Sleepy Brown
14. My Tone
15. Back in the Mud

Insanity is not really a defence because the acquittal of a person on the basis of insanity does not grant him freedom, in fact, the accused is detained upon such acquittal.

In the past, proving insanity was more favourable to defendants when faced with the capital punishment, but now that the capital punishment is abolished; a defendant found to be insane is a worse situation than any defendant to be detained for any limited time period.

The rules for this defence are based on the Rules of M’Naughten. These indicate that a disease of the mind leading to a malfunctioning of the mind causing a defect of reason so that the defendant does not know what he was doing or that he did not know that it was wrong, constitutes a legally insane person.

Automatism on the other hand is the situation where the defendant had no control over his physical actions, examples of these are reflexes and sleep-walking.

I do not see what the problem is with manufactured bubble gum artists! They look good, sound great, and the music and lyrics are even better because it was not them who made these. Ashlee Simpson is one of those bubble gum artists that I can never get tired of chewing, her solo album that was released last year still continues to impress me, I do not seem to get enough of Undiscovered, Love Makes The World Go Round, and Love Me For Me. I was listening to these tracks all day today.

*Album title: Autobiography,
*Release date: July 2004,
*Tracks:
1. Autobiography
2. Pieces Of Me
3. Shadow
4. La La
5. Love Makes The World Go Round
6. Better Off
7. Love Me For Me
8. Surrender
9. Unreachable
10. Nothing New
11. Giving It All Away
12. Undiscovered

Today’s lecture was part of a series of lectures regarding defences available under the Criminal Offences Act (I think… about the act that is. ) . Other available defences are mistake of fact, duress, necessity, insanity and automatism.

Intoxication is not a defence in its mere being, being found intoxicated can amount to an offence (eg. driving under the effect of alcohol), it might just as well be an evidence of the lack of mens rea required for an offence.

There are two forms of intoxication; involuntary intoxication (where D is unaware that he has consumed an intoxicant) and voluntary intoxication (where D knowingly consumed an intoxicant, even if he is unaware of its level).

Involuntary intoxication is usually a defence, while voluntary intoxication is only a defence for offences that require specific intent (as opposed to offences requiring basic intent). The distinction between specific and basic intent is hard to understand and seems at many instances arbitrary due to the desire of the court to not let ‘drinkers’ get away with their irresponsible actions. It is claimed that more serious offences require specific intent, while less serious offences require only basic intent, but is manslaughter a ‘less-serious-offence’?!!

Relevant cases: DPP v Beard, DPP v Majewski, R v Lipman, R v O’Grady, R v Fotheringham, R v Richardson and Irwin, AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.

Food is regulated in the UK by the Food Standards Act 1999. In reality, this Act only created the Food Standards Agency and almost makes no actual changes to the offences relating to food safety that originaly existed in the in the FSA 1990. The act has many important definitions including:

• Food: The definition currently used is the one taken from the Regulation 178/2002 – Article 2: For the purposes of this regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. ‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. Excluded from this definition are animal feed, live animals, birds, and fish unless they are to be consumed live, medical products, cosmetics, tobacco, narcotic substances, and residues and contaminants.
• Food Business: Includes the undertaking of a canteen, club, school, hospital or institution, and any undertakings of a public or local authority. Organisations will be applicable only if they are carrying a “commercial operation” with respect to food, food contact materials or food resources. A commercial operation is very widely defined to include selling, consigning, delivering, storing, transporting, importing, exporting, or preparing; which is defined as any process that changes the physical state of the food in question, it includes exposing the food to hot or cold temperatures; on the other hand, it does not include ‘slicing’ the food.
• Food Premises: Includes any vehicle, stall, or movable structure and for such purposes as may be specified by ministerial order, any ship or aircraft.

There are four main offences supplied in the Act:

1. Section 7 - Rendering food injurious to health with the intent that it should be sold for human consumption.

   Requires a positive act to “render” injurious to health, an omission will not be an offence. The offence is not of strict liability, but does not require the mens rea with connection with the actual process of rendering food injurious.

2. Section 8 - Failure to satisfy safety requirements.

   “Any person who sells for human consumption or offers, exposes, or advertises for sale such consumption or has in his possession for the purpose of such sale of preparation for such sale any food which fails to comply with food safety requirement shall be guilty of an offence.” Unsafe Food is defined as that which is injurious to health, that which is unfit for human consumption (putrid, diseased or unwholesome – case David Greigh Ltd v Gold ) and that which is contaminated (either by extraneous material or by something internal to the food supplied).

3. Section 14 - To sell to the prejudice of the purchaser food that is not of the nature, substance, or quality demanded by the purchaser.

   This section has three different offences, the action must determine the grounds of the prosecution otherwise it may fail on the basis of uncertainty. It is possible to have multiple grounds for a single action. The food supplied does not have to be harmful to establish an offence. (Minced beef cases)

   “Prejudice of the purchaser” is required to make it only an offence to provide the purchaser with food that falls below his expectations and not food superior to his expectations.

   Nature: The actual nature of the food. Proving the offence here will also prove a breach of section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act (Compliance with the description). Case: McDonald’s Hamburgers v Windle.

   Substance: Unwanted additions or articles; they do not have to be harmful. (Straw Case)
   Quality: Failure to reach expected standard. A question of fact that will depend on several variables including price and description.

4. Section 15 - It is an offence to sell, offer, expose or possess food with misleading description as to the nature, substance or quality of the food.

   The description has to be express, oral descriptions will not suffice, this offence is one of strict liability. Case: Van den Berghs & Jurgens v Burleigh > Nature scene of on artificial cream package.

Other than the offences, the act also supplies remedies and powers to facilitate the enforcement of the act. These include; Inspections, Improvement Notices, Prohibition Orders, and Emergency Orders.

The main defence available to the defendant here is the defence of due diligence and another easier version of the due diligence found within it available for those that did not import the food nor prepared it.

—

The FSA 1999 has also established the Food Safety Agency. Prior to the establishment of the FSA, it was believed that the MAFT was too connected to producers lowering its credibility in relation to consumer protection. The FSA’s main objective is to protect public health from farm to fork. It has more specific tasks such as, development of food policy for the government and other depts, provides advices to public authorities, represents the UK at a working level at the EC and any other international events, provides advice to any person seeking it, and it also obtains and compiles all information on food matters.

—

On the European level, the European Food Safety Authority was established as a scientific advisory body. It’s main functions are issuing scientific opinions, advising the EC in relation to GM issues, provides scientific opinions and identifies possible risks. Many criticise the EFSA for its lack of any real powers or functions, but the ECJ has recently hinted that the EC is under some duty to follow the advice of the EFSA in relation to any topic relating to food and not only in relation to the GM food, as was previously perceived.

I’ve made the decision to publish my weblog finally, I seek to use it as a way to concentrate on certain aspects of my studies as well as use it to write several misc thoughts, reviews, and news regarding various topics.