UK Offence Report

1 A person who contravenes the requirement of regulation 3(1) (landing of potatoes originating in Egypt) or…

regulation 7(1) of The Potatoes Originating in Egypt Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (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 A person who contravenes the requirement of regulation 3(1) (landing of potatoes originating in Egypt) or 4(1) (person processing potatoes otherwise than in an approved plant) 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

on processing potatoes otherwise than in an approved plant) 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. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Potatoes Originating in Egypt Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004, 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
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
19 April 2004
In force from
11 May 2004
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 consolidate with amendments the Potatoes Originating in Egypt Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (“the 1998 Regulations”). The Regulations implement Commission Decision 2004/4/EC authorising Member States temporarily to take additional measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith (now referred to as Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.) as regards Egypt. The Decision consolidates and repeals Commission Decision 96/301/EC (as amended). The Regulations – add Commission Decision 2004/4/EC to the list of instruments amending Commission Decision 96/301/EC (Regulation 2(1)); prohibit the import into Northern Ireland of potatoes which the importer knows or has reasonable cause to suspect originate in Egypt, unless those potatoes are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 1 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2004/4/EC (Regulation 3(1)); require potatoes originating in Egypt to be processed only in plants approved by the Department for that purpose (Regulation 4); provide that an inspector, who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that regulation 3(1) or 4 has been or is likely to be contravened, may exercise certain enforcement power conferred by Article 22 of the Plant Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (“the Order”) (Regulation 5); provide that any notice served or power exercised under regulation 5, where the power to do so is conferred by the Order, has the same effect as if served or exercised under the relevant article of the Order (Regulation 5(5) and (6)). Accordingly, once a notice is served or other power is exercised under Regulation 5, the relevant consequential provisions of the Order, including provisions as to offences take effect; permit an inspector to check that the provisions of the Regulations have been complied with by exercising certain powers conferred by Article 25 of the Order (Regulation 5(4)); set a fee of £37·50 where a sample of potatoes is taken for the purpose of ascertaining whether the potatoes are infected with Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.; and provide that a person who contravenes or fails to comply with Regulation 3(1) or 4(1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine. (Regulation 7). The Regulations also revoke the Potatoes Originating in Egypt Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 as amended. (Regulation 8).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same 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