UK Offence Report

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

article 9(d) of The Zoonoses Order 1989

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

d 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to do something the instrument requires
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 person 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 9(d)?

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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Zoonoses Order 1989, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

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
28 February 1989
In force from
1 March 1989
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.

Section 29 of the Animal Health Act 1981 (“the Act”) empowers Ministers, with a view to reducing the risk to human health from any organism carried in animals or poultry, to make an order designating any organism which, in their opinion, constitutes such a risk and to apply any provision of the Act to that organism. This Order, which revokes and re-enacts, with amendments, the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1975, designates (as did the 1975 Order) organisms of the genus salmonella and the genus brucella for the purposes of section 29 of the Act (article 4(1)) and applies certain provisions of the Act (including powers relating to the slaughter of poultry) to those organisms with a view to reducing any risk to human health from them (article 4(2) and Schedule 1). The Order continues to provide for – a the decleration as an infected place of premises on which there is or has been an animal or any poultry in which a designated organism is or was present and the imposition, by notice, of movement restrictions and isolation requirements (article 6); and b the cleansing and disinfection of premises and vehicles in which a designated organism is known or suspected to have been present (article 7). The changes of substance made by this Order are the inclusion of provisions which – a empower a Ministry inspector who has entered any premises in exercise of his powers under section 63(9) or section 64 of the Act to carry out such inquiries, examinations and tests and to take such samples as are necessary to ascertain whether any designated organisms are or have been present there (article 5); and b extend the requirement for making a report concerning the identification of a designated organism in a sample taken from certain animals, birds etc. (article 8 and Schedule 2).

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