UK Offence Report

1 A person who contravenes the requirements for notification under regulation 4 without reasonable excuse,…

regulation 7(1) of Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

1 A person who contravenes the requirements for notification under regulation

4 without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, shall be guilty of an offence.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses reasonable cause to suspect; which element that governs was not determined; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

avenes the requirements for notification under regulation 4 without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, shall be guilty of an offence.

What would breach regulation 7(1)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes the requirements for notification under regulation 4 without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

in Northern Ireland a reference to a level is construed as referring to the standard scale as it currently stands (Fines and Penalties (NI) Order 1984 art.5(3)), not as it stood when the instrument was made.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
6 January 1999
In force from
13 January 1999
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations.) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which come into operation on 13th January 1999, impose certain requirements in respect of potatoes grown in 1998 in the Netherlands in accordance with Commission Decision 95/506/EC authorising Member States to take additional measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith as regards the Kingdom of the Netherlands (O.J. No. L.291, 6.12.95, p. 48), as last amended by commission Decision 98/738/EC (O.J. No. L.354, 30.12.98, p. 62). These Regulations revoke and replace the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997. These Regulations require a person intending to land in Northern Ireland potatoes gown in 1998 in the Netherlands (“potatoes originating in the Netherlands”) to give to an inspector, at least two days prior notification of that intention and to provide specified information bout those potatoes. They require any person who landed potatoes originating in the Netherlands before the commencement of these Regulations to give written notification by 28th January 1999 of corresponding information relating to those potatoes (regulation 4). The Regulations provide that an inspector who had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has or will have in his possession potatoes originating in the Netherlands may exercise the powers contained in Articles 22 to 25 of the Plant Health Order (Northern Ireland) 1993 in relation to such potatoes (regulation 5). The Regulations prescribe that a fee of £118 shall be payable where a sample of seed potatoes is taken for the purpose of ascertaining whether the potatoes are infected with Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith (regulation 6). The fee is slightly higher than that prescribed by the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997. The Regulations provide that contravention of the requirements for notification under regulation 4 shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £5,000 (regulation 7).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source