UK Offence Report

Reporting requirement under bluetongue surveillance programmes

article 8 of The Bluetongue (Scotland) Order 2008 (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 It is an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981 for the owner or keeper of an animal, or

a veterinarian, not to report promptly any suspicion of bluetongue in accordance with the first indent of point 2(1) of Annex

1 to the Commission Regulation.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an owner
Conduct
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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 an owner 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 states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

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

What would breach article 8?

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 Bluetongue (Scotland) Order 2008.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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
16 January 2008
In force from
11 February 2008
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order continues to implement Council Directive 2000/75/EC (“the Directive”) laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue. It revokes and remakes the Bluetongue (Scotland) Order 2003 in order also to enforce Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1266/2007. The Order provides that references to the Commission Regulation are references to it as amended from time to time. The principal difference from the 2003 Order is that movement licences in zones controlled or restricted for the purposes of bluetongue control must be in accordance with the Commission Regulation rather than Commission Decision 2005/393/EC (O.J. L 130, 24.5.2005, p.22 as last amended by Decision 2007/357/EC (O.J. L 133, 25.5.2007, p.44)), which it replaces. Part 2 of the Order provides for notification of and other procedural requirements on suspicion of bluetongue. Part 3 provides for the establishment of various zones on confirmation of bluetongue. Unlike in the previous Order, these zones can now be of a size appropriate for the control of bluetongue. It controls the movement of animals from those zones. It also provides for the separation of a restricted zone into a protection zone and a surveillance zone, and controls movement between these zones. In that regard, while article 13 of the Order provides that no animal movements may take place in a control zone, Article 6(2) of the Directive does allow for provisions applicable to such movements being adopted in accordance with the comitology procedure set out in Article 20 of the Directive. It may therefore be possible in such circumstances for a licence authorising movement to be issued. In relation to movements from a place where bluetongue control measures are operating to a bluetongue free area there is a requirement (article 19) that Scottish Ministers be immediately informed of such movements. Part 4 of the Order covers a range of matters. It provides for surveillance for bluetongue (article 22) and prohibits vaccination against bluetongue without authorisation by the Scottish Ministers (article 23). It also makes provision for enforcement, which is the responsibility of the local authority, or the Scottish Ministers where they direct to that effect. Failure to comply with this Order is an offence under section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981. A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Order.

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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