sec.44Defence of due diligence

sec.44 Defence of due diligence

In proceedings for an offence under this chapter, it is a defence for a person to prove that the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by the person or by another person under the person’s control. Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) , a person satisfies those requirements if it is proved— that the commission of the offence was due to— an act or default of another person; or reliance on information supplied by another person; and that— the person carried out all checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the circumstances; or it was reasonable in all the circumstances to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied the food concerned to the person; and that the person did not import the food into the State from another country; and if the offence involves the sale of food, that— the person sold the food in the same condition as when the person purchased it; or the person sold the food in a different condition to that in which the person purchased it, but that the difference did not result in a contravention of this Act. Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) (b) (i) , a person may satisfy those requirements by proving that the person complied with— an accredited food safety program; or a scheme (for example, a quality assurance program or an industry code of practice) that was— designed to manage food safety hazards and based on Australian national or international standards, codes or guidelines designed for that purpose; and documented in some way. In subsection (2) (a) — another person does not include a person who was— an employee or agent of the defendant; or in the case of a defendant that is a body corporate, a director, employee or agent of the defendant. (sec.44-ssec.1) In proceedings for an offence under this chapter, it is a defence for a person to prove that the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by the person or by another person under the person’s control. (sec.44-ssec.2) Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) , a person satisfies those requirements if it is proved— that the commission of the offence was due to— an act or default of another person; or reliance on information supplied by another person; and that— the person carried out all checks of the food concerned as were reasonable in all the circumstances; or it was reasonable in all the circumstances to rely on checks carried out by the person who supplied the food concerned to the person; and that the person did not import the food into the State from another country; and if the offence involves the sale of food, that— the person sold the food in the same condition as when the person purchased it; or the person sold the food in a different condition to that in which the person purchased it, but that the difference did not result in a contravention of this Act. (sec.44-ssec.3) Without limiting the ways in which a person may satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) (b) (i) , a person may satisfy those requirements by proving that the person complied with— an accredited food safety program; or a scheme (for example, a quality assurance program or an industry code of practice) that was— designed to manage food safety hazards and based on Australian national or international standards, codes or guidelines designed for that purpose; and documented in some way. (sec.44-ssec.4) In subsection (2) (a) — another person does not include a person who was— an employee or agent of the defendant; or in the case of a defendant that is a body corporate, a director, employee or agent of the defendant.