UK Offence Report

Offences by bodies corporate

article 29(1) of The Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2013 (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

29 1 Where— a an offence against the Act in relation to this Order is committed by a body corporate or a Scottish partnership or other unincorporated association; b it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of— i a relevant individual; or ii an individual purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant individual, the individual as well as the body corporate, Scottish partnership or unincorporated association commits an offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 body corporate
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 a body corporate 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 29(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 what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2013.

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
8 January 2013
In force from
9 February 2013
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 restates with amendments the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Scotland) Order 2012 (“the 2012 Order”). Article 9 of the Order requires all keepers of breeding cattle to:— take or arrange to have taken samples from their breeding bovine animals or herds annually (by the compliance deadlines set in accordance with article 10); and submit those samples for testing (in accordance with article 14) to laboratories as approved by the Scottish Ministers under article 6. This is for the purposes of determining whether bovine viral diarrhoea virus (“BVDV”) is or may be present in the herd or the animal. Every keeper of a breeding herd or animal must take or arrange to have taken samples by one of the methods provided for in article11. In accordance with article 12, samples other than blood samples can be taken without consulting a veterinary surgeon. However, in relation to milk samples or bulk milk samples, those samples may be taken by any of the persons mentioned in article 13(1) or (2) respectively. On receipt of samples, approved laboratories must test for the presence of BVDV or evidence of exposure to BVDV and make a finding in relation to the herd or animal of either negative (“negative”) for the presence of BVDV or evidence of exposure to BVDV or not-negative (“not negative”) and report these findings to the keeper and to the Scottish Ministers together with certain other information (article17). Where a laboratory has determined the BVD finding to be “not negative”, a veterinary surgeon approved for this purpose by the Scottish Ministers may, if he or she considers that appropriate follow-up testing or investigation has been carried out, notify the Scottish Ministers of a change in BVD finding from “not negative” to “negative” (article23). Where the BVD finding is “not negative”, the keeper must notify that finding to the keeper of any other breeding herd or breeding bovine animal kept on the same holding (article 22). Similar provision is made in relation to any calf which is born other than to breeding cattle (a “qualifying calf”). Under article 15, the keeper must take (or arrange to have taken) a blood or ear tag tissue sample within 40days of its birth and submit it to an approved laboratory for testing for the presence of BVDV. The laboratory must report the results to the keeper and to the Scottish Ministers (article18). Approved laboratories must keep records of any test carried out under this Order for 3years and, if requested, provide these to the Scottish Ministers (article19). Under article 20, where any laboratory, otherwise than under Part 2, tests a sample of any description taken from a bovine animal for the presence of BVDV, it must inform the Scottish Ministers. Article 21 makes provision as to the BVD status of breeding herds and breeding bovine animals which have a current BVD finding (as defined in article 2). Article 24 requires and also enables the Scottish Ministers to inform the keepers of bovine animals, the operators of any markets to which the animal is to be moved and certain other persons, of the current BVD finding or the results of any laboratory tests for the presence of BVDV. Articles 25 to 29 make provision in relation to enforcement and offences. Article 30 provides for the revocation of the 2012 Order, subject to the savings and transitional provisions specified in the Schedule. The principal changes made by this Order to the 2012 Order are as follows:— to align the provisions for sampling breeding herds and breeding bovine animals (article11); to clarify how blood samples may be taken from breeding herds or bovine animals (article11(2)(d)); to make provision in relation to management (ear) tags (article8) and sampling involving the use of such tags (article11(6) and (7)); to clarify when samples may be taken with or without consultation with, or authorisation from, a veterinary surgeon (article 12); to extend the requirements for reporting of tests for the presence of BVDV to all laboratories (article 20) and, in consequence, what constitutes BVD status (article21) and a BVD finding (as defined in article2); and to require the Scottish Ministers to maintain and provide information about current BVD findings and the results of tests for the presence of BVDV (article 24) No business and regulatory impact assessment has been prepared for this Order as no further impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is foreseen.

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 0.92.

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