UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Diseases of Poultry (Scotland) Order 2003

the instrument as a whole of The Diseases of Poultry (Scotland) Order 2003

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

Contravening this instrument is an offence under section

73 of the Animal Health Act 1981. 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Diseases of Poultry (Scotland) Order 2003.

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 section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

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
Status not determined
Made
9 July 2003
In force from
10 July 2003
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.

This Order (read with the Animal Health Act 1981) further implements Council Directive 92/40/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (O.J. No. L 167, 22.6.92, p.1) and Council Directive 92/66/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease (O.J. No. L 260, 5.9.92, p.1) (“the Directives”). The Directives were previously implemented by the Diseases of Poultry Order 1994 (“the 1994 Order”) and the Diseases of Poultry (Amendment) Order 1997, both revoked by this Order. This Order, like the Directives, now applies to ratites. This Order also extends provisions in article 5A of the 1994 Order (relating to inspection powers and movement restrictions) to diseases of birds and to species of birds not covered by the Directives. These provisions are set out in article 7 of this Order. Articles 1 to 3 of the Order contain introductory and interpretation provisions. Article 4 provides for the notification of designated diseases and for the taking of precautionary measures when disease is suspected. Article 5 sets out restrictions which may apply if a designated disease is suspected or known to exist. Article 6 provides for veterinary inquiry into the existence of a designated disease. Article 7 sets out restrictions which apply where poultry or other birds are suspected of having been exposed to the risk of disease. Article 8 provides for veterinary inquiry as to the possible existence of disease. Article 9 provides for the measures to be taken where a designated disease is confirmed. The restrictions referred to in articles 4, 5 and 9 are set out in Schedule 1. Article 10 sets out the duties of occupiers and persons in charge of premises served with a notice under the Order. Article 11 provides for the declaration by the Scottish Ministers of an infected area where disease has been confirmed. The restrictions applicable in an infected area are set out in Schedule 2. Article 12 allows the Scottish Ministers to require vaccination of poultry. Article 13 sets out restrictions applicable to racing pigeons. Article 14 contains provisions on cleansing and disinfection. Article 15 relates to the keeping of records and article 16 to licences and notices. Article 17 sets out the general powers of veterinary inspectors under the Order. Article 18 provides for the Order to be enforced generally by local authorities. Article 19 revokes the 1994 Order and the Diseases of Poultry (Amendment) Order 1997 insofar as they apply to Scotland. Failure to comply with this Order is an offence under section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

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 0.55.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.55 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