UK Offence Report

14 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a defaces,…

article 14 of The Infectious Diseases of Horses Order 1987

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

14 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him—

a defaces, obliterates or removes any mark applied to any horse by or under any provision of this Order; or

b contravenes any provision of this Order or any provision of

a licence, approval or notice issued, granted or served under this Order; or

c fails to comply with any such provision or with any condition of such

a licence, approval or notice; or

d knowingly causes or permits any such contravention or non-compliance, commits an offence against the Act.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (knowingly).

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly; qualified by lawful excuse (an element).

The defence, as drafted

14 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a defaces, obliterates or removes any mark applied to any horse by or under any provision of this Order; or b contravenes any provision of this Order or any provision of a licence, approval or notice issued, granted or served

What would breach article 14?

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 Infectious Diseases of Horses Order 1987, 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
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
29 April 1987
In force from
20 May 1987
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 consolidates, with amendments, the provisions of various orders relating to diseases of horses listed in Schedule 3 to the Order, which are revoked. The Order continues to provide for— a the compulsory notification of diseases of horses (as defined in article 3(1)) (article 4); b the declaration as an infected place of premises where diseases of horses are suspected to exist (article 5) and rules to be observed in respect of an infected place (article 7); c the investigation by a veterinary inspector into the existence of diseases of horses and the examination by him of horses or carcases for this purpose (article 6); d the prohibition of the movement of horses, carcases and other things on to or out of premises exposed to infection (article 10); and e the cleansing and disinfection of premises and vehicles (article 11). The only changes of substance are that the provisions of this Order apply to the disease known as contagious equine metritis in addition to the diseases of horses referred to in the Orders listed in Schedule 3 and that there is no longer any provision relating to the compulsory slaughter of horses suspected of being affected with glanders.

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