UK Offence Report

Amendment of the Biocidal Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

regulation 2(3) of Biocidal Products (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (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

3 After sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph

2 of Schedule

10 there shall be added the following sub-paragraph:

4 Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), any person who fails to discharge

a duty under regulation 8(5) shall be guilty of an offence under Article 31(1)(c) of the 1978 Order. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to do something the instrument requires
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 2(3)?

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 fails to discharge a duty under regulation 8(5).
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Biocidal Products (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, by the time it requires it to be done.
  3. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to Article 31(1)(c) of the 1978 Order.

penalty is that of the referenced enactment; not stated in this instrument.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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
30 September 2002
In force from
14 November 2002
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 Biocidal Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (S.R. 2001 No. 422) by – a replacing paragraph (5) of regulation 8 with a new paragraph defining the duty on any person using a biocidal product containing certain active substances; and b introducing a new provision into Schedule 10 to explicitly make a breach of that duty an offence. The effect of these amendments is to clarify that, in any prosecution for breach of the duty under regulation 8(5), the onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the use of the product was not in accordance with the requirements of the duty.

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”; c10_offence_under_parent_act
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