What would breach article 11 of The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988?

Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, whatever the reason for doing it. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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

Q: Is article 11 of The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988 a strict liability offence?

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

article 11 of The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988

Revoked
Requires proof of a state of mind
Dogs, animals, hunting and wildlife

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

11 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 bovine animal or carcase under article 5(2)(c) of this Order;
b contravenes any provision of this Order or any provision of
a licence issued, or of
a notice served, under this Order;
c fails to comply with any such provision or with any condition of such
a licence 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

11 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 bovine animal or carcase under article 5(2)(c) of this Order; b contravenes any provision of this Order or any provision of a licence issued, or of a notice served, un

What would breach article 11?

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.

Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, whatever the reason for doing it.
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.

Animal cruelty: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2017
Covers cruelty to and neglect of animals, and the associated disqualification and deprivation orders.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1988
Revoked on: 30 December 1988
Made: 14 June 1988
In force from: 21 June 1988
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 Order, which is made under the Animal Health Act 1981, provides for a the compulsory notification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“the disease”) in bovine animals (article 4); b the investigation by a veterinary inspector into the existence of the disease and the examination by him of bovine animals and their carcases for this purpose (article 5(1), (2) and (3)); c the imposition (by a notice in Form A served by a veterinary inspector) of certain requirements, including a prohibition on movement except under licence, in respect of a bovine animal which is affected with the disease (article 5(4), (5) and (6)); d the prohibition (by a notice in writing served by a veterinary inspector) of the movement of any bovine animal, except under licence, where this may give rise to the risk of the spread of the disease (article 6); e the prohibition (from 18th July 1988 to 1st January 1989) of (1) the sale and supply for feeding to ruminating animals of any feeding stuff in which any animal protein (as defined in the Order) has been incorporated and (2) the feeding to ruminating animals of any such feeding stuff (article 7); f the cleansing and disinfection of premises and of equipment used in connection with a bovine animal or carcase which is affected or suspected of being affected with the disease (article 8); and g sampling of feedingstuffs, production of licences issued for the movement of bovine animals and offences (articles 9, 10 and 11).

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Dogs, animals, hunting and wildlifeOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1988