Curry House owner kills man with cheap peanut powder

Owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

Mohammed Zaman, 53, who was employing illegal workers in his takeaway, substituted almond powder with cheaper ground nut mix, which contained peanuts, as a way of cutting costs, a jury heard.

Less than a month earlier, on January 3rd 2014, student Ruby Scott, 17, who suffered the same allergy, had already fallen seriously ill after suffering anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction - having eaten a chicken korma from another of Zaman's restaurants. She was saved after being rushed to hospital and injected with an epi-pen.

Her mother later rang the restaurant, The Jaipur in Easingwold, North Yorks, to ask whether it contained peanuts but she was assured it did not and had been safe for allergy sufferers.

Zaman failed to act, continuing to sell meals containing peanuts whilst assuring customers they were safe for nut-allergy sufferers, it is alleged.

Paul Wilson was killed by the curry he bought at The Indian Garden restaurant, also in Easingwold, on January 30th 2014, despite clearly stating "no nuts" - an order that was written on the lid of his takeaway meal, Teesside Crown Court heard.

Prosecutor Richard Wright, QC, told the court Zaman cut corners to save cash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/indian-restaurant-accused-of-killing-customer-with-curry/

He should be charged with murder.

Or at least something akin to negligent homicide.

he has been...negligent manslaughter

Lord Foul wrote:he has been...negligent manslaughter

Yeah, the difference between "Die!" and "I'll put you in mortal peril because I don't care if you die." What I never got was how attempted murder is punished less than actual murder, at least in the U.S. You're essentially granting leniency on the basis of incompetence at murder ...

The real message of this story, though, is that capitalism is inherently flawed in that it rewards capitalists for putting others at risk.

What a needless death.
That man should be utterly ashamed of himself and he should be made to pay enormous compensation.

The problem of genetically modified organisms is slowly gaining attention. My daughter suffers from peanut allergies and I have had experiences.

But, though on the periphery, its not common enough knowledge to say someone should have readily known...at least sufficient enough to make a murder charge stick.

Of course he knew, and if he didn't he's negligent and should pay.

eddie wrote:...and if he didn't he's negligent and should pay.

That part is correct. But negligence is not murder.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:...and if he didn't he's negligent and should pay.

That part is correct.  But negligence is not murder.

It must have been proven that he knowingly served it as containing a peanut produce.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That part is correct.  But negligence is not murder.

It must have been proven that he knowingly served it as containing a peanut produce.

And that he knew the danger of GMO foods.

Quill you have to state, on any menu, if a dish contains peanuts.
What has GMO got to do with it?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

It must have been proven that he knowingly served it as containing a peanut produce.

And that he knew the danger of GMO foods.

A debt ridden owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And that he knew the danger of GMO foods.

A debt ridden owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

That's what the court heard. Allegations, like assumptions, are not fact.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:
A debt ridden owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

That's what the court heard.  Allegations, like assumptions, are not fact.

That is what they are proving in court.
Its hardly then an assumption, if its proven beyond doubt.
Thus you are making a poor defense, based on no facts yourself but only assumptions

He had already almost killed a 17 year old by serving product with nut in it after being made aware the customer was allergic.

Seems that scare wasn't enough to change his ways.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

It must have been proven that he knowingly served it as containing a peanut produce.

And that he knew the danger of GMO foods.

A debt ridden owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

Well I was starting to wonder if quill had read the same article!!

eddie wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:
A debt ridden owner of an Indian restaurant killed a customer by serving him a meal that he knew contained potentially lethal peanut powder, a court heard.

Well I was starting to wonder if quill had read the same article!!

Even though nobody was making any racial point here, Quill sees the defendent has darker skin and immediatelly his "white guilt" kicks in. Which then denies him the ability to read the article itself and he goes off what posters reply


Catch you later Eddie

eddie wrote:Quill you have to state, on any menu, if a dish contains peanuts.
What has GMO got to do with it?

Do you? Is that an actual law?

Rags wherever you're serving peanuts etc in a restaurant you have to say so on the menu.

That's why you seen labels that say "may contain nuts or traces of nuts"

In schools you are strictly not allowed to have nuts in the building if there's a known allergic person.

there seems to be confusion between murder (or attempted murder) and negligent manslaughter


murder or attempted murder is the mind of...I'm gonna kill you (even if the attempt fails

negligent manslaughter is the mind of

I'm going to do this regardless of the risk to (anyone and everyone)

as a general principle I understand murder requires the INTENT to kill....generally (but ont exclusively) a defined target/targets

and yes I never understood why attempted murder is punished less rigorously than actual murder

the clue I think lies in old cannon law...where killing was seen as a mortal sin, whereas the mere attempt was seen as a lesser sin and thus not to be punished so harshly

also of course it requires the judgement of that intent

clearly one could state that stabbing someone is "attempted murder"...but is it???

one might for example stab an adversary in the butt cheeks to "teach a severe lesson" with NO intent to kill...

that of course is agravated assault but NOT attempted murder, since the idea is to "teach a lesson" and lessons are not learned if the "pupil" dies

think about the "knee cappings" so favoured by the IRA and so on.......

Original Quill wrote:The problem of genetically modified organisms is slowly gaining attention.  My daughter suffers from peanut allergies and I have had experiences.

But, though on the periphery, its not common enough knowledge to say someone should have readily known...at least sufficient enough to make a murder charge stick.  

But - BUT ...here's the where the fly gets caught in the ointment >

Clipped from the article >

Mr Wright said Zaman deliberately cut corners because he was desperately needed to save cash, running his businesses at their overdraft limits.
With debts mounting Zaman met with his Blackburn-based food supplier Fakir Chilwan in June 2013 and asked him to replace almond power with ground nut powder, which was half the price, the prosecution alleged. 
Mr Wright said: "He was told by Mr Chilwan that ground nut was in fact about half the price of almond. On being told that Mr Zaman instructed Chilwan to stop sending him almond and instead to send him ground nut powder.
"Mr Chilwan noted the request but also stressed that the change in ingredient was significant. He told Mr Zaman that if he changed product he would have to change his menu to ensure that customers knew he was using peanut ingredients in the preparation of food."
Allegedly Zaman said he would but in fact ignored the warning.
Mr Wright added: "The prosecution say therefore that the defendant had been given clear warning by his supplier as early as June 2013 that the product he had ordered for use in his kitchens posed a serious risk to the health, and potentially life, of any customer who might have a nut allergy."
In what is thought to be the first prosecution of its kind, Zaman denies the manslaughter of Mr Wilson.
He also denied contravening EU food safety regulations on January 3, 2014 and selling food not of the substance demanded on January 23 and 30.
Zaman pleaded not guilty to falsely describing food on a menu on January 23 that year, and contravening food safety regulations on January 23 and 30 by placing food described as nut-free on the market that was unsafe for nut allergy sufferers.
The trial, expected to last three weeks, continues.

Makes me shutter to know that this cretin 'KNOWNINGLY' did this to his own menu and caused the painful death of one and could have caused so many others such horrid painful allergic reactions as well. 

Even if the family is awarded any monetary ruling ...this dude was pulling this crap to cut costs because he was going broke!

yup. hes skint...

and te criminal compensation scheme wont pay out either I doubt....

perhaps we should boil him in (peanut) oil....

or perhaps all "deity " like...we could damn him and his descendants for seven generations to serve in miserable pennance as slaves in a salt mine in cheshire...after all its what they beleive (along with some others) isnt it??

(BTW...that was hyperbole/rhetorical/tongue in cheek for those who an explanation is needed )

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The problem of genetically modified organisms is slowly gaining attention.  My daughter suffers from peanut allergies and I have had experiences.

But, though on the periphery, its not common enough knowledge to say someone should have readily known...at least sufficient enough to make a murder charge stick.  

But - BUT ...here's the where the fly gets caught in the ointment >

Clipped from the article >

Mr Wright said Zaman deliberately cut corners because he was desperately needed to save cash, running his businesses at their overdraft limits.
With debts mounting Zaman met with his Blackburn-based food supplier Fakir Chilwan in June 2013 and asked him to replace almond power with ground nut powder, which was half the price, the prosecution alleged. 
Mr Wright said: "He was told by Mr Chilwan that ground nut was in fact about half the price of almond. On being told that Mr Zaman instructed Chilwan to stop sending him almond and instead to send him ground nut powder.
"Mr Chilwan noted the request but also stressed that the change in ingredient was significant. He told Mr Zaman that if he changed product he would have to change his menu to ensure that customers knew he was using peanut ingredients in the preparation of food."
Allegedly Zaman said he would but in fact ignored the warning.
Mr Wright added: "The prosecution say therefore that the defendant had been given clear warning by his supplier as early as June 2013 that the product he had ordered for use in his kitchens posed a serious risk to the health, and potentially life, of any customer who might have a nut allergy."
In what is thought to be the first prosecution of its kind, Zaman denies the manslaughter of Mr Wilson.
He also denied contravening EU food safety regulations on January 3, 2014 and selling food not of the substance demanded on January 23 and 30.
Zaman pleaded not guilty to falsely describing food on a menu on January 23 that year, and contravening food safety regulations on January 23 and 30 by placing food described as nut-free on the market that was unsafe for nut allergy sufferers.
The trial, expected to last three weeks, continues.

Makes me shutter to know that this cretin 'KNOWNINGLY' did this to his own menu and caused the painful death of one and could have caused so many others such horrid painful allergic reactions as well. 

Even if the family is awarded any monetary ruling ...this dude was pulling this crap to cut costs because he was going broke!

Yes, that is shocking. Yet, Victor's point is still valid.

The standards are, intent to kill for murder, and callous disregard for the consequences (or depraved-indifference murder) for manslaughter or second-degree murder.

Wiki wrote:In a depraved-heart murder, defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to someone else. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought. In some jurisdictions, depraved-heart killings constitute second-degree murder, while in others, the act would be charged with varying degrees of manslaughter.

I don't see a deliberate intent to kill in the actions of this man. If anything, this is callous disregard.

RESULT...of a sort


"The owner of a curry house where a customer died eating food containing peanuts has been setenced to six years in jail for causing the man's death.

Mohammed Zaman was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence when a customer with a severe peanut allergy died after eating a takeaway - even though the diner had insisted his meal must be nut-free.

Paul Wilson suffered a severe anaphylactic shock after ordering the meal from the Indian Garden restaurant in North Yorkshire.

Teesside Crown Court was told that Zaman "put profit before safety" by failing to warn customers with allergies that he was using peanut ingredients.

A prosecutor said the owner had a "reckless and cavalier attitude to risk" and had been warned by a trading standards officer to change his business' practices only a week before Mr Wilson died in January 2014."


from http://news.sky.com/story/1700833/peanut-death-restaurateur-jailed-for-six-years

inadequate IMO since he will only serve 3 but better than expected ....

he should have got 20.....

Especially when the supplier told him - warned him again - the owner acknowledged that he understood the NEED to change the information on his menu and yet he 'WILLFULLY' chose to not do that and then to LIE to a customer anyway! 

A prosecutor said the owner had a "reckless and cavalier attitude to risk" and had been warned by a trading standards officer to change his business' practices only a week before Mr Wilson died in January 2014."

He really could give a rats-ass ...his family will be the one's to suffer; I can't imagine that his wife and other family members will be able to hang onto the restaurant now!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:...and if he didn't he's negligent and should pay.

That part is correct.  But negligence is not murder.

It is when you nearly killed someone the same way earlier, then do it again. He knew that this might kill someone, and he went ahead anyway.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:...and if he didn't he's negligent and should pay.

That part is correct.  But negligence is not murder.

It is when you nearly killed someone the same way earlier, then do it again.  He knew that this might kill someone, and he went ahead anyway.

Quill has a habit of not reading articles properly, as do I at times, to be fair.
Difference is I'll say "pffff I didn't read it, apologies" whereas quill will go round in circles.

I still like him though.

Lord Foul wrote:yup. hes skint...

and te criminal compensation scheme wont pay out either I doubt....

perhaps we should boil him in (peanut) oil....

or perhaps all "deity " like...we could damn him and his descendants for seven generations to serve in miserable pennance as slaves in a salt mine in cheshire...after all its what they beleive (along with some others) isnt it??

(BTW...that was hyperbole/rhetorical/tongue in cheek for those who an explanation is needed )

You can bet your life he's not truly skint. He's still sending his kid to private school and it states he built up £2m in property. He'll have run up the debt on the restaurant because he'd rather cut corners on staff, training and ingredients then use his other money to subsidise it.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It is when you nearly killed someone the same way earlier, then do it again.  He knew that this might kill someone, and he went ahead anyway.

Quill has a habit of not reading articles properly, as do I at times,  to be fair.
Difference is I'll say "pffff I didn't read it, apologies" whereas quill will go round in circles.

I still like him though.

Liar, liar...

The only ones I don't read through are didge's, as he has a habit of not reading and not understanding them either. Anyway they don't say what he supposes, so it's a **FAIL** from the start. But I no longer respond to didge, so it all evens out.

There's nothing you've ever posted, eds, I haven't read through. But you're not in the habit of posting those tediously long posts, with no comment. Honestly, WTF should I read them if the OP doesn't bother to read them either?

You are such a prevaricator.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Quill has a habit of not reading articles properly, as do I at times,  to be fair.
Difference is I'll say "pffff I didn't read it, apologies" whereas quill will go round in circles.

I still like him though.

Liar, liar...

The only ones I don't read through are didge's, as he has a habit of not reading and not understanding them either.  Anyway they don't say what he supposes, so it's a **FAIL** from the start.  But I no longer respond to didge, so it all evens out.

There's nothing you've ever posted, eds, I haven't read through.  But you're not in the habit of posting those tediously long posts, with no comment.  Honestly, WTF should I read them if the OP doesn't bother to read them either?

You are such a prevaricator.

You clearly did not read this article as proven on this very thread by me

No need to make up lies about me, when you have been caught with your knickers down son

Pffftt...did some insect just fly by?

Original Quill wrote:Pffftt...did some insect just fly by?

Well it would be neat to be able to fly, but as a human I cannot, but nice to see you are worse than a racist, as now you denying me my own species, that of human, because you feel incorrectly that you are superior.
You see, you can unravel the same methodology from some on the left, those regressives in their line of thinking

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Pffftt...did some insect just fly by?

Well it would be neat to be able to fly, but as a human I cannot, but nice to see you are worse than a racist, as now you denying me my own species, that of human, because you feel incorrectly that you are superior.
You see, you can unravel the same methodology from some on the left, those regressives in their line of thinking

SO THEN,  now you're accusing Quill of being a 'speciesist',  are you Didge  ?!?


THOUGH, I don't really  see how that would be any worse than being a racist..        

He was a bit of a 'nut'.

People should take responsibilities for their own problems.
The customer should ask about the restaurants 'nut' policy.

Dunno how anyone dare eat in a curry house anyway.

Stormee wrote:People should take responsibilities for their own problems.
The customer should ask about the restaurants 'nut' policy.

Dunno how anyone dare eat in a curry house anyway.

He did.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It is when you nearly killed someone the same way earlier, then do it again.  He knew that this might kill someone, and he went ahead anyway.

Quill has a habit of not reading articles properly, as do I at times,  to be fair.
Difference is I'll say "pffff I didn't read it, apologies" whereas quill will go round in circles.

I still like him though.

Liar, liar...

The only ones I don't read through are didge's, as he has a habit of not reading and not understanding them either.  Anyway they don't say what he supposes, so it's a **FAIL** from the start.  But I no longer respond to didge, so it all evens out.

There's nothing you've ever posted, eds, I haven't read through.  But you're not in the habit of posting those tediously long posts, with no comment.  Honestly, WTF should I read them if the OP doesn't bother to read them either?

You are such a prevaricator.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Liar, liar...

The only ones I don't read through are didge's, as he has a habit of not reading and not understanding them either.  Anyway they don't say what he supposes, so it's a **FAIL** from the start.  But I no longer respond to didge, so it all evens out.

There's nothing you've ever posted, eds, I haven't read through.  But you're not in the habit of posting those tediously long posts, with no comment.  Honestly, WTF should I read them if the OP doesn't bother to read them either?

You are such a prevaricator.

We have that shop, Agent prevaricator.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Stormee wrote:People should take responsibilities for their own problems.
The customer should ask about the restaurants 'nut' policy.

Dunno how anyone dare eat in a curry house anyway.

He did.

The customer was in no way to blame...the restaurant owner KNEW he was putting peoples lives in danger yet carried on buying a cheap substitute that he KNEW contained nuts whilst lying that it did not.
I think 6 years is a pathetically light sentence for his deliberate neglect that has resulted in the mans death.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:
He did.

The customer was in no way to blame...the restaurant owner KNEW he was putting peoples lives in danger yet carried on buying a cheap substitute that he KNEW contained nuts whilst lying that it did not.
I think 6 years is a pathetically light sentence for his deliberate neglect that has resulted in the mans death.

Well, that brings to mind a question for all of us; when does a British judge get to throw the 'BOOK' at such a horrid/devious offender? 
Are they ever allowed to 'do a HARD 50' - like our maximum and that's it - no opportunity for parole until the maximum sentence is served? Could this judge not have had that option since this abuser had willfully known about the danger - disregarded the danger - put another humans life at risk and took the life of another man that TRUSTED his word about 'no peanuts used in the making of his meal'?

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:
The customer was in no way to blame...the restaurant owner KNEW he was putting peoples lives in danger yet carried on buying a cheap substitute that he KNEW contained nuts whilst lying that it did not.
I think 6 years is a pathetically light sentence for his deliberate neglect that has resulted in the mans death.

Well, that brings to mind a question for all of us; when does a British judge get to throw the 'BOOK' at such a horrid/devious offender? 
Are they ever allowed to 'do a HARD 50' - like our maximum and that's it - no opportunity for parole until the maximum sentence is served? Could this judge not have had that option since this abuser had willfully known about the danger - disregarded the danger - put another humans life at risk and took the life of another man that TRUSTED his word about 'no peanuts used in the making of his meal'?

Great point. British judges are absolute pussies when it comes to sentencing.

In America, prosecutors can afford to undercharge, because judges have such wide latitude they can get the sentence right. I can't tell you how often I am stunned by the patty-cake game that Brit judges play.

I agree our sentencing and sometimes judgments (think uber cabbie) are often ridiculous.

Syl wrote:I agree our sentencing and sometimes judgments (think uber cabbie) are often ridiculous.

Uber cabbie was a jury. Judges are different

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I agree our sentencing and sometimes judgments (think uber cabbie) are often ridiculous.

Uber cabbie was a jury.  Judges are different

Juries can be directed by the judge...especially if they are thick as seems to have been the case here..

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Uber cabbie was a jury.  Judges are different

Juries can be directed by the judge...especially if they are thick as seems to have been the case here..

And you were talking about sentencing, and sentencing in the UK is by judges I've learned. I'm wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Juries can be directed by the judge...especially if they are thick as seems to have been the case here..

And you were talking about sentencing, and sentencing in the UK is by judges I've learned.  I'm wrong.

Yes the judge decides on the sentence...however if the jury delivers a non guilty verdict there obviously is no sentence.

However to get back to the point...yes, the meagre sentencing of many people who HAVE been found guilty of certain crimes is pathetic in the UK.