UK Offence Report

Application of various Articles of the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991

regulation 5(2) of The Contaminants in Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 (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

8 Any person who knowingly contravenes the requirements of

a notice under paragraph (2)(a) shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly.

What would breach regulation 5(2)?

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 knowingly contravenes the requirements of a notice under paragraph (2)(a).
  2. Being served with a notice under the Contaminants in Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

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
24 September 2010
In force from
20 October 2010
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 revoke and re-enact with changes the Contaminants in Food Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 (S.R. 2009 No. 220). They make provision for the continuing execution and enforcement of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ No.L364, 20.12.2006, p.5) (“the Commission Regulation”). The Commission Regulation, which replaced with amendments the provisions formerly contained in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 466/2001, has recently been amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No. 165/2010 which concerns maximum levels for aflatoxins and the treatment of certain foods found to contain aflatoxins in excess of those levels (OJ No. L50, 27.2.2010, p8). The Commission Regulation has previously also been amended by — a Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1126/2007 (OJ No. L255, 29.9.2007, p.14), concerning maximum permitted levels for Fusarium toxins in maize and maize products; b Commission Regulation (EC) No. 565/2008 (OJ No. L160, 19.6.2008, p.20), concerning maximum permitted levels for dioxins and PCBs in fish liver; c Commission Regulation (EC) No. 629/2008 (OJ No. L173, 3.7.2008, p.6), concerning maximum permitted levels for certain heavy metals; and d Commission Regulation (EU) No. 105/2010 (OJ No. L35, 6.2.2010, p.7), concerning maximum permitted levels for ochratoxin A. These Regulations also provide for the execution and enforcement of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 124/2009 (OJ No. L40, 11.2.2009, p.7) (“Regulation 124/2009”), which concerns maximum permitted levels for certain feed additives that may, in specified circumstances, occur in food. The Regulations — a provide that it is an offence, (except in certain cases relating to food placed on the market before a date given in specified EU legislation) — i to place on the market certain foods if they contain contaminants of any kind specified in the Commission Regulation or in Regulation 124/2009 at levels exceeding those specified, ii to use food containing contaminants at levels in excess of those permitted by the Commission Regulation as ingredients in the production of certain foods, iii to mix foods that do not comply with the maximum levels prescribed by the Commission Regulation or Regulation 124/2009 with foods which do comply, iv to mix foods to which the Commission Regulation relates and which are intended for direct consumption or as food ingredients with foods to which the Commission Regulation relates and which are intended to be sorted or otherwise treated prior to consumption, or v to detoxify by chemical treatment food containing mycotoxins in excess of the limits specified in the Commission Regulation (regulation 3); b specify the enforcement authorities (regulation 4); c provide for the application of specified provisions of the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 for the purposes of these Regulations (regulation 5); d make a consequential amendment to the Food Safety (Sampling and Qualifications) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991, the effect being to disapply the sampling and analysis provisions of those Regulations only to the extent that those matters are regulated by the EU instruments mentioned in paragraph (a) to (d) below. The Commission Regulation specifies the European Union methods of sampling and analysis that are required to be used for the official control of levels of the substances covered by it. Those methods are set out in — a Commission Regulation (EC) No. 401/2006 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of mycotoxins in foodstuffs (OJ No. L70, 9.3.2006, p.12), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 178/2010 (OJ No. L52, 3.3.2010, p.32); b Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1882/2006 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of levels of nitrates in certain foodstuffs (OJ No. L364, 20.12.2006, p.25); c Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1883/2006 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs (OJ No. L364, 20.12.2006, p.32); d Commission Regulation (EC) No. 333/2007 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and benza(a)pyrene in foodstuffs (OJ No. L88, 29.3.2007, p29).

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