UK Offence Report

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

article 13 of The Processed Animal Protein 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

13 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

a condition of such 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

13 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 a condition of such licence; or c knowingly causes or permits any such contraventio

What would breach article 13?

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 Processed Animal Protein Order 1989, 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
13 April 1989
In force from
3 June 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.

This Order re-enacts the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1981 (“the 1981 Order”) with amendments. It continues to enable authorised officers to take for testing at a laboratory samples of processed animal protein from premises where it is produced (article 8). The Order makes the following changes of substance by– 1 requiring the registration of animal protein processors (article 5); 2 imposing a duty on the Registered person to ensure the taking of samples from processed animal protein and its submission to a laboratory for testing for salmonella (article 6); 3 imposing a duty on the Registered person to ensure (where he knows that a test on a sample has proved positive) that for a period of one month no processed animal protein produced on premises in respect of which his name is entered in the Register is (without further treatment and testing) removed from premises occupied by him or under his control and is not incorporated in a feeding stuff for livestock or poultry, unless the processed animal protein to be removed is taken from a separate storage facility or under the authority of a licence (article 7); 4 prohibiting any tampering with samples (article 10); and 5 requiring Registered persons to keep records of the results of tests on samples (article 11) and to give information to enable the tracing of contaminated feeding stuffs (article 12). The provisions requiring the registration of animal protein processors shall come into force on 13th June 1989. Until that date the duties of a Registered person under the Order shall be the duties of the owner or person in charge of the premises which are used in the course of a business for processing animal protein (articles 1(2) and 3(2)). Until 13th August 1989 samples taken under the Order are required to be tested at laboratories which have the necessary facilities and personnel for carrying out the tests in accordance with the Order and after that date the samples are required to be tested at laboratories authorised in writing by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for this purpose.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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