UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 6(1) of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Feedingstuffs and Surveillance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (revoked)

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 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him—

a defaces, obliterates or removes any mark applied to any bovine animal or carcase under regulation 4(1)(c);

b contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 4(2) or 5(1); or

c knowingly causes or permits any such contravention or non-compliance, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally, knowingly).

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly; qualified by lawful excuse (an element).

The defence, as drafted

1 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a defaces, obliterates or removes any mark applied to any bovine animal or carcase under regulation 4(1)(c); b contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 4(2) or 5(1); or c knowingly causes or permits any such contraventi

What would breach regulation 6(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. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Feedingstuffs and Surveillance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
9 July 1999
In force from
3 September 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 give effect in part to Commission Decision 95/287/EC amending Decision 94/474/EEC concerning certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (O.J. No. L181, 1.8.95, p. 40) and in part to Article 4(1) of Commission Decision 98/272/EC (O.J. No. L122, 24.4.98, p. 59) on epidemio-surveillance for bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Regulations— a enables samples to be taken for the purpose of enabling the Official Elisa tests for identification of ruminant protein in feed intended for ruminants to be carried out (regulation 3). The obligation to carry out those tests is contained in the text added to Article 3(3)(c) of Decision 94/474/EEC by Article 1(1) of Decision 95/287/EC; b make provision for the investigation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy as part of a programme of monitoring carried out by the Department under Article 4(1) of Commission Decision 98/272/EC (regulation 4(1)). This includes the inspection, examination and testing of bovine animals and carcases, the taking of samples, marking the animals and their carcases and examining records; c require that people in charge or in possession of bovine animals and carcases of bovine animals co-operate with these investigations (regulation 4(2)); d make provision in relation to entry onto premises by authorised officers of the Department (the remaining provisions of regulation 4); e prohibit the obstruction of and other activities in relation to such officers acting in execution of these Regulations (regulation 5); and f provide offences and penalties (regulation 6).

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