UK Offence Report

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he or she contravenes or fails to comply with…

regulation 7(1) of The Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (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

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he or she contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 3(1), 3(2) or 4(1).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

“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: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses reasonable cause to suspect; which element that governs was not determined; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he or she contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 3(1), 3(2) or 4(1).

What would breach regulation 7(1)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
9 February 2012
In force from
21 March 2012
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations implement in Scotland Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No2011/787 authorising Member States temporarily to take emergency measures against the dissemination of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. as regards Egypt (“the Decision”). The Decision repeals and replaces Commission Decision (EC)No 2004/4 (OJL2, 6.1.2004, p.50). These Regulations amend the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the “principal Regulations”) to implement the Decision. These Regulations amend regulation 2 of the principal Regulations to— substitute a new definition of “the Decision” (regulation2(2)(a)); insert a definition of “pest-free area” (regulation 2(2)(b)); and substitute a new definition of “phytosanitary certificate” (regulation2(2)(c)). The Regulations substitute regulation 3 of the principal Regulations to prohibit the import of potatoes into Scotland other than from a pest-free area of Egypt and only where they are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate (regulation 2(3)). The Regulations amend regulation 4 of the principal Regulations, which deals with the approval of premises for the treatment of Egyptian potatoes, to include the requirement to label potatoes to indicate their Egyptian origin (regulation 2(4)). The Regulations also make changes to regulation5 (powers of an inspector) in consequence of the substitution of regulation3 and the amendment of regulation4 of the principal Regulations (regulation2(5)). The Regulations update references to the Decision in regulation 6 of the principal Regulations, in respect of the power to charge for sampling of potatoes (regulation 2(6)). They also make some drafting changes to the offence provision at regulation 7 of the principal Regulations, to reflect modern drafting practice and also in consequence of the substitution of regulation 3 of the principal Regulations (regulation (2(7)). The Regulations introduce a new regulation 7A in relation to offences committed by bodies corporate (regulation 2(8)). They also revoke obsolete provisions of the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007, in consequence of the substitution of the definitions of “the Decision” and “phytosanitary certificate” and of regulation 3 of the principal Regulations (regulation 3). No Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared for these Regulations.

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 “commits 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