Amendment of the Food Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996
regulation 9 of Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (revoked)
- Status not determined
- Strict liability
- Summary only
- Food, consumer protection, trading standards, product safety and age-restricted sales
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
9 In regulation 44 (offences and penalties), for the words from paragraph (e) to the end there shall be substituted— e being a person other than whichever of— i the manufacturer, ii the packer, or iii the seller established within the European Community, who was originally responsible for so marking the food, removes or alters the appropriate durability indication relating to that food, or f sells any food to which the labelling requirements of Regulation 1139/98 apply which is not marked or labelled with the GMO particulars, except in the case of any food to which regulation 36(4A) applies and in respect of which alternative particulars are displayed in accordance with regulation 36(4B), he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. .
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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
- selling or supplying something the instrument restricts
- Fault element
- Strict liability
- Burden of proof
- No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything
The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.
Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.
The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.
Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.
What would breach regulation 9?
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.
- Selling the goods under the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
- Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
- Offering for sale counts as well as selling: displaying stock is enough where the provision reaches an offer.
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.
-
Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant
All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
-
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
-
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
-
General guideline: overarching principles
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
-
Totality: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.
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
- 22 March 1999
- In force from
- 23 March 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 amend the Food Labelling Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (“the principal Regulations”), as amended. They provide for the enforcement of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication, on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms, of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC (regulations 3 and 9). The products concerned are those which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer, having been produced in whole or in part from genetically modified soya beans or genetically modified maize (Article 1 of Regulation 1139/98 refers. There are transitional provisions in Article 4 of that Regulation in respect of products which are already on the market or which are labelled in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1813/97 (O.J. No. L257, 20.9.97, p. 7)). Regulation 1139/98 was made pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (O.J. No. L33, 8.2.79, p. 1). Pursuant to Article 11 of that Directive, the Regulations— a contain exemptions from the need to be labelled with the particulars required by Regulation 1139/98 in the case of small packages and certain indelibly marked glass bottles, and include a similar exemption in respect of the particulars specified in regulations 33 and 34 of the principal Regulations (relating to foods packaged in certain gases and foods containing sweetners or added sugars) (regulation 5); and b make provision as to the manner of marking or labelling in the case of the particulars required by Regulation 1139/98 (regulations 6, 7 and 8). Further to Article 12 of Directive 79/112/EEC, the Regulations— a allow alternative labelling arrangements instead of the particulars required by Regulation 1139/98 in the case of sales to the ultimate consumer by appropriate premises of food which is prepacked for direct sale or not prepacked (regulation 7); and b contain transitional provisions in respect of sales of such food to the ultimate consumer (regulation 12). These Regulations also make some consequential amendments and some technical amendments in respect of the application of specified provisions of the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (regulations 4, 10 and 11).
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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
- 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
- This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
- Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (revoked) Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- Food, consumer protection, trading standards, product safety and age-restricted salesOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 1999