Day 100 - 09 Mar 95 - Page 24
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, it started: "McDonald's has been in
2 court for selling under-cooked burgers".
3
4 MS. STEEL: So you have taken all the steps you think are
5 possible to prevent these incidents happening, and some
6 still slip through the net, some incidents of under-cooking
7 still occur?
8 A. That was the decision that was made. Obviously, we
9 continually look at our systems and look to improve them
10 wherever we can, so it is not a static thing.
11
12 Q. It is something that has improved over the years then?
13 A. We are continually looking to improve it. As perhaps
14 new technology or new techniques become available, then we
15 look to take advantage of those.
16
17 Q. A customer order of McNuggets is usually six McNuggets, is
18 it not?
19 A. Six, nine or 20s.
20
21 Q. Six, nine or 20. The six and the nine are more frequent?
22 A. Yes.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: So in that incident it was found that or McDonald's
25 position is that -----
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can I explain what I understand the statutory
28 provisions are there? If you sell food which is not the
29 quality -- I cannot remember the exact words of the section
30 although I looked at it again a day or two ago -- if you do
31 not meet the demands of the section, you commit an
32 offence. The prosecution has to prove that so as to make a
33 Magistrates court, or whatever, sure of that, but very
34 often in that kind of prosecution there is no dispute that
35 it is not of the quality it should be. Then a provision
36 which almost immediately follows provides the accused
37 company (in this case) with a defence if they use all
38 reasonable precautions, or whatever the words used, and
39 they have to establish that defence, but not so as to make
40 the court sure, just on the balance of probabilities.
41
42 If my summary is correct, it would either be proved or
43 admitted that the product was under-cooked but the
44 Magistrates, or in the case of the under-cooked quarter
45 pounder, the Crown Court on appeal, would have reached a
46 conclusion that probably McDonald's did they best they
47 could to avoid that result.
48
49 MS. STEEL: I am not sure whether I asked this already, the
50 incident in Burnley, when was that?
51 A. I do not know the exact date. It was two or three,
52 two-and-a-half years.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You said a couple of years ago, but you did
55 not give a date.
56
57 MS. STEEL: The incident in Sutton with the raw Chicken
58 Sandwich, McDonald's pleaded guilty to that offence, did
59 they not?
60 A. Although I was not involved in this, I know that
