UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Swine Vesicular Disease (Scotland) Order 2009

the instrument as a whole of The Swine Vesicular Disease (Scotland) Order 2009 (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

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 Swine Vesicular Disease (Scotland) Order 2009 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 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
30 April 2009
In force from
25 May 2009
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 transposes provisions of Council Directive 92/119/EEC (O.J. No. L 62, 15.3.1993, p.69) (“the 1992 Directive”), introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases, and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease, in so far as the 1992 Directive provides for controls for that disease. The 1992 Directive was amended by Commission Directive 2007/10/EC amending Annex II to the 1992 Directive as regards measures to be taken with a protection zone following an outbreak of swine vesicular disease (O.J. L 63, 1.3.2007, p.24) (“the 2007 Directive”). The 1992 Directive, and in particular the amendments made to it by the 2007 Directive, is also transposed so far as relating to swine vesicular disease by the Products of Animal Origin (Disease Control) (Scotland) Order 2008 (“the 2008 Order”). This Order and the 2008 Order are made under powers in the Animal Health Act 1981. The definition of ‘disease’ in section 88(1) of that Act was extended to include swine vesicular disease for all the purposes of that Act by article 3(2) of the 2008 Order. Part 1 of the Order contains definitions and makes provision for the application of the Order. Part 2 of the Order makes general provisions relevant to the application of the measures in the Order. Part 3 of the Order makes provision in respect of pigs living in the wild, pigs used in research and conservation of species. Part 4 of the Order contains the control measures that will apply in the event of an outbreak, including special provision for suspicion of disease. The detailed measures applying to– a suspected or infected premises are set out in Schedule 1; b protection zones are set out in Schedule 2; and c surveillance zones are set out in Schedule 3. Part 5 contains provisions relating to inspection and enforcement, revocation of earlier control legislation, and a consequential amendment of the 2008 Order. Failure to comply with the Order is an offence under section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981, punishable in accordance with section 75 of that Act. A Regulatory Impact Assessment on the effect of this instrument has been placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. A copy may be obtained from the Scottish Government Rural Directorate, Pentland House, Robb’s Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TW.

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 0.70.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.70 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