UK Offence Report

Amendments to the Principal Regulations

regulation 2(15) of Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 (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

15 After regulation 31 insert— Offences 31A 1 A water undertaker which applies or introduces, any substance or product in contravention of regulation 30(2) or a notice given under regulation 30(8), or uses any process in contravention of a prohibition imposed under regulation 31(1) or without complying with a condition imposed by virtue of regulation 31(2) shall be guilty of an offence and liable— a on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; b on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching a condition of a licence, permit or consent
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

hall be a defence for that water undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

What would breach regulation 2(15)?

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. Holding a valid licence but doing the thing it allows outside the hours, place or limits its conditions set under the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009.
  2. Failing to do something a condition positively requires - a record, a notification, a monitoring step - even though the licensed activity itself is carried on properly.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
24 June 2009
In force from
15 July 2009
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations amend the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/147) (“the Principal Regulations). The Principal Regulations implement Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (“the Drinking Water Directive”) (OJ No L330, 5.12.1998, p.32) in Northern Ireland in relation of water supplies by water undertakers, and make further provision about the supply of drinking water. These amendment Regulations also implement parts of Council Directive 2000/60/EC (“the Water Framework Directive”) and Council Directive 2008/99/EC (“the Environmental Crime Directive”). Regulation 2 amends the Principal Regulations and the main changes are as follows: Paragraph (3) inserts a requirement that water must be of uniform quality within a water supply zone designated by a water undertaker. Paragraph (4) inserts new compliance requirements for water supplied in bottles or containers during a breakdown in the piped supply system. Paragraph (5) clarifies the Principal Regulations. Paragraph (6) inserts new risk assessment requirements in relation to water supplied from new sources. Paragraph (7) inserts new requirements in relation to monitoring of drinking water abstraction points. Monitoring at such points is necessary to comply with the new provisions on disinfection of raw water, other treatment arrangements and risk assessments inserted by paragraphs (11) to (13). It also inserts requirements for monitoring frequencies of parameters set out in Annex X of the Council Directive 2000/60/EC. This monitoring reflects those parameters that are established by the risk assessments set out in paragraphs (11) to (13). Paragraph (8) amends the Principal Regulations by moving the word “discloses” to the end of sub-paragraph (a). Paragraph (9) amends the publication requirements in relation to the authorisation of temporary supplies of unwholesome water, usually referred to as “authorised departures”. Paragraph (11) takes account of the repeal of Council Directive 75/440/EEC concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ No L194, 25/7/1975, p.26), as amended by Article 22(1) of the Water Framework Directive. The new provision requires that raw water is disinfected and that other adequate treatment arrangements are in place. A breach of these requirements is enforceable under Article 30 of the Water and Sewerages Services (NI) Order 2006. Paragraphs (12) and (13) replace existing provisions in relation to Cryptosporidium with a general duty to conduct risk assessments of water treatment works and supply systems and to take appropriate action to deal with any potential danger to human health identified. Supplying water from water treatment works or supply systems in breach of these requirements is enforceable under Article 30 of the Water and Sewerages Services (NI) Order 2006. Paragraph (14) amends the Principal Regulations by updating to current EU requirements and inserting specifications on the Department’s issuing of conditions of the approval of substances. Paragraph (15) inserts a criminal offence to implement and comply with the Council Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Paragraph (16) clarifies the numbering of paragraphs to coincide with the amendments made. Paragraph (17) amends the Principal Regulations by removing the requirement for the water undertaker to provide information upon any request and allows them to give any requested, maintained record within ten working days of the request. It also regulates the provision of information after a water quality event to certain named bodies. Paragraph (18) amends the Principal Regulations to make the publication of the water undertakers report more appropriate and applicable to the public and district councils.

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