UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 17(3) of The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (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

3 A person is guilty of an offence if without reasonable excuse that person supplies to

a relevant auditor,

a relevant inspector or an enforcement officer information which, in any material particular, is false or misleading.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

3 A person is guilty of an offence if without reasonable excuse that person supplies to a relevant auditor, a relevant inspector or an enforcement officer information which, in any material particular, is false or misleading.

What would breach regulation 17(3)?

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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (Scotland) Regulations 2007.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months

in Scotland a reference to a level is construed as referring to the standard scale as it currently stands (CP(S)A 1995 s.225(2)), 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
20 February 2007
In force from
15 March 2007
Extent
S

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 apply and enforce Council Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 (O.J. No. L 191, 28.05.2004, p.1) (“Regulation 882/2004”) in Scotland in relation to animal health and welfare rules, and feed and food law excluded from the Official Feed and Food Controls (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”), which also apply and enforce Regulation 882/2004. These Regulations provide for the designation of the Scottish Ministers and local authorities (including food authorities) as competent authorities for the purposes of Article 4.1 of Regulation 882/2004 (regulations 3 to 5). The designations relate to: a animal health and welfare rules; b feed and food law which concerns controls on animals; and c certain feed and food law concerning controls on food or feed excluded from the designations in the 2005 Regulations, namely: i animal by-products (in relation to feed); and ii the import from third countries of, and intra-Community trade in, products of animal origin; and iii beef labelling. They also relate to TSEs in relation to testing (including sampling) controls on bovine, ovine and caprine animals slaughtered for human consumption. The designations do not include medicated feedingstuffs and zootechnical additives, which are a reserved matter covered in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2006. Nor do the designations include the following– i protected name food products and specific character food products; ii veterinary medicines residues; iii pesticides residues; iv organic foods, including imported organic food products. These Regulations provide expressly for the exchange of information between competent authorities in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in the European Union (regulation 6). They create independent powers for a competent authority’s auditors to conduct audits required under Article 4.6 of Regulation 882/2004 (regulation 7). Provision is made for the Scottish Ministers to call for information from a local authority about its audits; and for them to require an auditor to carry out an audit of that local authority’s official controls as a competent authority (regulation 8). Where the Scottish Ministers arrange that the Food Standards Agency is to carry out an audit of relevant legislation under these Regulations, monitoring provisions of the 2005 Regulations apply together with the corresponding enforcement provisions from the 2005 Regulations (regulation 9 of these Regulations). The Regulations also supplement existing powers of inspectors so that they may bring Commission experts with them for the purposes of the Commission’s own audits (regulation 10). There are provisions to facilitate assistance and co-operation between member States required under Title IV (Articles 34 to 40) of Regulation 882/2004 (regulations 11 and 12), in particular to enable officials of the Commission and other member States to attend with an inspector who investigates suspected breaches under the relevant legislation. Regulation 13 provides for the payment on written demand of expenses charged to a feed or food business operator under Articles 28 and 40.4 of Regulation 882/2004. Part 5 provides for the enforcement of the Regulations, including powers of enforcement officers for this purpose (regulation 16). It is an offence under regulation 17 to obstruct an auditor, an enforcement officer, or an inspector who is accompanied by representatives from the Commission or other member States, or any persons accompanying an inspector or auditor. It is also an offence under regulation 17 to provide misleading or false information to, or to fail to provide information requested by, an inspector or auditor or an enforcement officer. The penalty on summary conviction for the offences is a fine at level 5 of the standard scale (currently £5,000) or three months' imprisonment, or both (regulation 17(4)). Provision is made for the prosecution of offences committed by corporate bodies (regulation 18). A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared in respect of these Regulations and has been placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. Copies can be obtained from The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Pentland House, Robb’s Loan, Edinburgh, EH14 1TY.

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