What would breach regulation 5 of The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990?

On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these Regulations. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, whatever the reason for doing it. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

5 A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these Regulations shall be guilty of an…

Q: Is regulation 5 of The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990 a strict liability offence?

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.

regulation 5 of The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990

Status not determined
Strict liability
Set by another provision
Dogs, animals, hunting and wildlife

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

5 A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence under section
2 of 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: 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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach regulation 5?

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.

On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these Regulations.
Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, 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: Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to section 2 of the Act.

penalty is that of the referenced enactment; not stated in this instrument.

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: Status not determined
Made: 16 July 1990
In force from: 1 January 1991
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

These Regulations make provision for the welfare of livestock on agricultural land by imposing a duty on any person who keeps the livestock to ensure that– a anyone attending or in charge of the livestock (including himself) has access to any welfare code relating to that livestock and that such persons are aware of the provisions of any such code and, in the case of persons attending or in charge of livestock on his behalf, that they have received instruction and guidance on its provisions (regulation 3(a), (b) and (c)); b where any livestock are kept in buildings, there is adequate lighting to enable them to be thoroughly inspected (regulation 3(d)); c the interior of any building to which livestock have access is so constructed and maintained that it cannot cause them injury or distress (regulation 3(e)) and that the fittings used to restrain livestock are adequate (regulation 3(f)); and d the livestock are properly fed and watered (regulation 3(g) and (h)). The Regulations also contain welfare provisions concerning bedding, separation of livestock, sick or injured animals, cows which are lactating or calving, feeding of calves, accommodation of rabbits and procedures involving electro-immobilisation of livestock (regulation 3(i) to (p)). In addition, the Regulations amend the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 by inserting welfare provisions concerning automatic ventilation systems in intensive units (regulation 4).

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.

Animals Commons · 12 July 1990
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.). That the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved — [Mr. Lightbown]
Agriculture Commons · 18 April 1991 · Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen). For far too many years he was shut away in the Whips' Office and we did not hear enough from him. We are delighted to have him back and to hear his contributions, which are always of great value. My right hon. Friend the Minister has given us a realistic assessment of the situation. I do not understand why the Opposition…
Animal Welfare Commons · 30 June 1994 · Mr. Soames
If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed in an orderly fashion, I shall come to that. The phase-out of stalls and tethers was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who has a most distinguished record in this field. It was introduced by the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991, which allowed an eight-year phase-in period to the end of 1998—unlike the directive, which…
Welfare Of Livestock Regulations 1994 Lords · 15 July 1994
Next I would like to deal with the schedule: concerning the welfare of other livestock. This brings together requirements currently contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978 and the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990. The intensive units regulations were introduced in 1978 as a result of our commitment to implement the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept…

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”; c10_offence_under_parent_act
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 Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Dogs, animals, hunting and wildlifeOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1990