PrimeSafe Prosecutions

PrimeSafe will prosecute a business or individual to protect public health. We will take legal action when there is serious non-compliance with food safety standards and regulations in the meat, seafood, and pet meat industries.

Our job is to enforce the law to protect consumers from unsafe food handling practices.

Here are summaries of some of our prosecution case summaries.

Prosecution case summaries

Below are summaries of some of the matters PrimeSafe have prosecuted in court.

1. Seafood Safety Act 2003, Section 9 (1). Unlicensed seafood business

Magistrates’ Court 2022

A seafood business was operating without a current and valid seafood safety licence. This breached Section 9 (1) of the Seafood Safety Act 2003.

Following a guilty plea, the court heard an agreed summary of facts. 

The Magistrate noted the serious nature of seven offences where seafood products were harvested and sold for human consumption without a seafood safety licence.

The maximum penalty for a first offence at the time this matter was first brought to the court was $16,522 and $82,610 for each subsequent offence, or 24 months imprisonment or both.

The Magistrate took into account the personal financial circumstances, the absence of criminal history, and acknowledged the early guilty plea.

The Accused was found guilty with conviction on seven charges, fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $11,280.

2. Seafood Safety Act 2003, Section 9 (1). Unlicensed seafood business

Magistrates’ Court 2019

A seafood business was operating without a current and valid seafood safety licence. This breached Section 9 (1) of the Seafood Safety Act 2003.

Following a guilty plea, the court heard an agreed summary of facts. 

The Magistrate noted the serious nature of the offences as seafood products were sold without a licence for human consumption.

The maximum penalty at the time this matter was brought to the court was $16,119.

The Magistrate took into account the Accused’s personal circumstances, older age, lack of criminal history, being of good character, and the early guilty plea.

The Accused was found guilty, without conviction, and was placed on an adjourned undertaking under the conditions that the Accused be of good character for 12 months. The Accused was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $2,000.

3. Meat Industry Act 1993, Sections 34, 40 and 42A. Selling meat for human consumption slaughtered at an unlicensed facility; operating an unlicensed meat processing facility; transporting meat in an unlicensed vehicle

Magistrates’ Court 2019

A business was selling meat for human consumption from a consumable animal slaughtered and processed at an unlicensed meat processing facility, operating a meat processing facility without a licence to operate that facility, and using and owning an unlicensed vehicle for the conveyance of carcasses and meat intended for human consumption.

Following a guilty plea, the court heard an Agreed Summary of Facts. 

The Magistrate sentenced the Accused on two charges with a third charge agreed to be struck out. Although the Magistrate agreed that the charges were serious, the Magistrate took into account the Accused’s early guilty plea, the lack of prior convictions, his older age, and that he was not given a warning. The Magistrate also took into account the Accused’s good character, his help towards unprivileged children and the impact potential conviction could have on his residential status.

The Accused was found guilty, without conviction, and placed on an adjourned undertaking to be of good character for 12 months. He was fined $2,500 with an additional $1,000 charity donation to be made by the Accused and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $5,000.

4. Meat Industry Act 1993, Section 40 (1). Unlicensed meat processing

Magistrates’ Court 2018

A business was operating an unlicensed meat processing facility in breach of section 40 (1) of the Meat Industry Act 1993.

The court heard an agreed summary of facts and circumstances of aggravation. Photos taken by PrimeSafe officers were provided to the court to demonstrate the unhygienic conditions in which meat products were stored and handled at the premises. The criminal record of the Accused was also provided to the court.

The court was informed the offending did not simply involve the re-packaging of meat for family and friends but also the production of sausages in unhygienic conditions for sale without a licence.

In sentencing, the magistrate noted the need to protect the public and commented on the level of public liability, for example, should a family purchase meat and be poisoned after purchasing meat from an unlicensed premises.
The Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $3,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $3,000.

5. Seafood Safety Act 2003, Section 9. Unlicensed seafood business (transportation)

Magistrates’ Court 2016

A business was operating without a current and valid seafood safety licence in breach of section 9 (1) of the Seafood Safety Act 2003.

The court heard that, after a complaint from a member of the public, an inspection of this facility conducted by two PrimeSafe officers revealed that the business was transporting seafood for human consumption without holding the appropriate licences to do so.

The transport vehicles inspected on the day were in an extremely unhygienic condition and did not comply with the construction requirements of the Australian Standard. This posed a serious threat to public health.

The business had also previously been directed to cease transporting seafood in unlicensed vehicles until appropriate licences were obtained.

During an interview with PrimeSafe, the operator confirmed that they had been transporting seafood without a PrimeSafe licence.

The Accused was fined $2,500 and ordered to the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the amount of $7,500 but without a plea of guilty the Magistrate advised they would have imposed a fine of $10,000.

6. Meat Industry Act 1993, Section 40 (1). Unlicensed meat processing

Magistrates’ Court 2016

A business was operating an unlicensed Meat Processing Facility in breach of section 40 (1) of the Meat Industry Act 1993.

The court heard that two complaints had been received alleging that the accused was operating an unlicensed meat processing business. Photos taken by PrimeSafe officers were provided to the court to demonstrate that the premises was being used as a meat processing facility storing, processing and preparing pig carcasses for sale to local restaurants. The facility did not comply with the hygiene and construction requirements of the Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS 4696: 2007).

The court was also provided with a record of interview between PrimeSafe and the Accused where an admission was made in relation to operating an unlicensed meat processing facility.

The Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $5,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $3,000 but without an early plea of guilty the Magistrate advised he would have imposed a fine of $7000.

7. Seafood Safety Act 2003, Section 9. Unlicensed seafood business

Magistrates’ Court 2015

A seafood business was operating without a licence in breach of section 9 of the Seafood Safety Act 2003.

The court heard that PrimeSafe received a complaint regarding the operation of a potentially unlicensed facility.
PrimeSafe officers inspected the premises and found that seafood and seafood products were being stored, processed and wholesaled from premises which was not licensed by PrimeSafe. The facility appeared to be maintained in an unhygienic condition and did not comply with the construction requirements of the standard.

There was also an unlicensed seafood transport vehicle on the premises.
The two operators present were directed to cease operating immediately. Approximately one tonne of seafood was seized and denatured with PrimeSafe condemnation ink in the interests of public health.

The two individuals were convicted and fined $8,500 each. The company was convicted, fined $7,000 and ordered to the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the amount of $15,000.

8. Meat Industry Act 1993, Section 73 (1). Obstruct an inspector

Magistrates’ Court 2014

An inspector was obstructed, threatened and intimidated in breach of section 73 (1) of the Meat Industry Act 1993.

The court was told that a PrimeSafe licensing manager attended a facility to conduct sampling of meat products as part of the PrimeSafe sulphur dioxide testing program.

During the testing the officer was approached by a family member of the operator who asked personal and inappropriate questions. After being told that this was inappropriate the person became agitated and aggressive. The officer was blocked from exiting the room as the offender continued to scream abuse and threats.

The operator had the Accused removed from the room and the officer completed the testing.

The behaviour was unprovoked and an extreme overreaction to the presence of the PrimeSafe officer.

The Accused was fined $2,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the amount of $2,000.

9. Meat Industry Act 1993, Section 73 (1). Obstruct an inspector

Magistrates’ Court 2008

A PrimeSafe inspector experienced threatening and intimidating behaviour in breach of Section 73 (1) of the Meat Industry Act 1993.

The court heard that, during a pre-arranged licence cancellation inspection, the Accused’s abusive, threatening, aggressive and irrational behaviour prohibited the PrimeSafe inspector from conducting their duty.

The Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $1,200 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $1,500.

An appeal was made and the matter was re-heard in the County Court of Victoria in 2009.

The judge set aside the Magistrates’ Court orders and the Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $1,200 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $5,000.

10. Meat Industry Act 1993, Sections 34, 39 and 41. Ban on sale of certain meat for consumption, branding and breaching licence conditions

Magistrates’ Court 2008

A business failed to comply with conditions or restrictions specified in a relevant licence. They sold meat which had not been slaughtered and processed at a licensed meat processing facility.  The meat had not been inspected and branded in accordance with the Act and Regulations.

The court heard that PrimeSafe officers conducted an inspection to ensure that meat was being processed at the facility in compliance with PrimeSafe licence requirements. They found serious non-conformances including the storage of unbranded carcasses on site.

It was determined that this situation posed an unacceptable risk to public health and the Accused was issued with a Section 74 Prohibition Notice prohibiting the licensee and the operator from processing meat including storage at the facility. Approximately 300 kg of meat was seized and destroyed with PrimeSafe condemnation ink in the interests of public health.

In an interview with PrimeSafe the Accused made full admissions to the storage of the unbranded carcasses.

The Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $3,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $5,000.

11. Meat Industry Act 1993, Section 41. Breaching licence conditions

Magistrates’ Court 2007

A business failed to comply with licence conditions or restrictions in breach of section 41 of the Meat Industry Act 1993.

The court heard that PrimeSafe was told by Council that a fire had broken out at a PrimeSafe licensed facility and during an inspection of the damage the fire department raised concerns regarding the unhygienic state of the facility.

When the facility was inspected by PrimeSafe officers it was found to be in an extremely unhygienic state, with product being stored in uncontrolled conditions . There was an overwhelming stench throughout the facility. Records had not been maintained and procedures not followed for three months prior. The licensee and the operator were issued with a Section 74 Prohibition Notice, prohibiting the facility from operating.

It was also discovered that the operator had an interstate based facility that was unregistered.

Approximately 3,000 kg of meat and meat products stored at the Victorian facility were seized and denatured with PrimeSafe condemnation ink in the interests of public health.

The Accused was found guilty, convicted and fined $4,000 and ordered to pay the legal costs of PrimeSafe in the sum of $7,000.