UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Food (Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Order 2000

the instrument as a whole of The Food (Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Order 2000

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

Contravening this instrument is an offence under sections 10(2), 33 and 35 of the Food Safety Act 1990. The instrument itself contains no offence-creating words.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
importing or exporting without authority
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Not determined

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.

Classifier’s reasoning: contravention offences of this kind are strict as to the breach; the fault position is governed by the parent Act and was not read from it.

What would breach the instrument as a whole?

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. Moving the goods across the border under the Food (Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Order 2000 without the licence the instrument requires.
  2. Holding a licence for one consignment and using it for another.
  3. Sending goods in transit through the United Kingdom, where the provision catches transit as well as import and export.

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 sections 10(2), 33 and 35 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

the penalty is in the parent Act, not 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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Food (Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Revocation Order 2000
Revoked on
21 June 2000
Made
24 January 2000
In force from
17 February 2000
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, which applies to Scotland, revokes and re-enacts with certain changes, the Food (Animals and Animal Products from Belgium) (Emergency Control) (No. 2) (Scotland) Order 1999 (S.S.I. 1999/32) (“the revoked Order”) and implements in Scotland, in relation to food and food sources, Commission Decision 1999/788/EC on protective measures with regard to contamination by dioxins of certain products of porcine and poultry origin intended for human or animal consumption (OJ No. L310, 4.12.1999, p.62). The Order defines ‘relevant animal product’ (article 1(3)), prohibits (with exceptions (article 2)) the carrying out of commercial operations relating to them (article 3), specifies the enforcement authorities (article 4) and applies with modifications provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (article 5). In addition to making minor changes to the revoked Order, this Order, by referring to Decision 1999/788/EC, makes the following changes of substance– a it narrows the coverage of the revoked Order in that it does not apply to pigs, poultry and hatching eggs, but only to products derived from pigs and poultry; b the controls do not apply in the case of products derived from poultry or pigs slaughtered after 20th September 1999 or from eggs laid after that date; c it amends the certification requirements for importation of animal products from Belgium; and d it amends the requirements as to return to Belgium by applying them only to products derived from animals slaughtered, or eggs laid, before 20th September 1999.

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 0.59.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.59 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