UK Offence Report

6 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a contravenes any…

article 6 of The Marek’s Disease (Restriction on Vaccination) Order 1987

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

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

a contravenes any provision of this order or any provision of

a licence issued under it; or

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

a licence; or

c 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

6 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a contravenes any provision of this order or any provision of a licence issued under it; or b fails to comply with any such provision or with any condition of such a licence; or c knowingly causes or permits any such contrave

What would breach article 6?

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 Marek’s Disease (Restriction on Vaccination) 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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Marek’s Disease (Restriction on Vaccination) (Revocation) Order 1994
Revoked on
25 March 1994
Made
14 May 1987
In force from
31 May 1987
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order prohibits the vaccination of any poultry against Marek’s disease with a vaccine of the kind specified in the Order (that is to say a vaccine consisting of or containing derivatives of the Rispens strain or the SB1 strain) except under the authority of a licence issued by the appropriate Minister (as defined in the Order) (article 4).

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