UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 17 of The Animals and Fresh Meat (Examination for Residues) Regulations 1988

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

17 If any person—

a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with

a notice given under regulation 7(2)(c) or 8(1), or

a requirement under regulation 10,

11 or 14, or

b without written authority given by

a competent authority, intentionally alters, removes, obliterates or defaces

a marking made under regulation 7(2)(a) or attempts to do so, or

c intentionally obstructs an authorised officer acting in execution of these Regulations, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding £2000.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
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 (intentionally).

“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: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

17 If any person— a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a notice given under regulation 7(2)(c) or 8(1), or a requirement under regulation 10, 11 or 14, or b without written authority given by a competent authority, intentionally alters, removes, obliterates or defaces a marking made under regulatio

What would breach regulation 17?

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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Animals and Fresh Meat (Examination for Residues) Regulations 1988.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£2,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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 Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992
Made
6 May 1988
In force from
7 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 note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which apply throughout the United Kingdom, come into force on 1st May 1988. They implement Articles 8, 9 and 10 of Council Directive 86/469/EEC (OJ No. L275, 26.9.86, p.36) concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues, Article 8.1(a) of which provides for sampling to be carried out officially in the Member States in accordance with common criteria for the different groups of substances of concern. Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Council Directive 85/358/EEC (OJ No. 191, 23.7.85, p.46) supplementing Directive 81/602/EEC concerning the prohibition of certain substances having hormonal action and of any substances having a thyrostatic action, are also implemented by these Regulations, as modified by regulation 6 of the Animals and Fresh Meat (Hormonal Substances) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/849). The Regulations— a make provision for the primary analysis of official samples taken from animals and fresh meat, for notice to the owner and the competent authority of positive findings of prohibited substances and excess authorised substances and for reference analysis where such findings are challenged by the owner or the competent authority so decides (regulations 4, 5 and 6); b empower competent authorities, where they are of the opinion, as a result of information received from specified sources or otherwise have reasonable grounds for suspecting the presence of residues, to subject animals at farms of origin and elsewhere to examinations for residues, to mark them and to control their disposal during examinations (regulation 7); c require notices to be given to owners on completion of examinations, forbidding sale or slaughter for consumption where prohibited substances or while excess authorised substances are present (regulation 8); d permit, in specified circumstances, the early slaughter of animals containing excess authorised substances (regulation 9); e require the keeping, retention and production of specified records and documents (regulations 10 and 11 and Schedules 1 and 2); f confer on authorised officers powers of inspection, sampling and entry (regulations 12 and 13); g make provision for assistance to authorised officers, certificates of analysis, service of notices and certificates and offences and penalties (regulations 14—18).

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 is “guilty of 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