UK Offence Report

Transitional provisions

regulation 12 of The Jam and Similar Products (Amendment) Regulations 1990

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

12 In any proceedings in respect of an act done before 31st December 1900 which is alleged to constitute an offence under the principal Regulations or under the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, the defendant shall not be convicted unless the prosecution prove that such act would have constituted an offence if regulations 2 to 11 of these Regulations had been in force when the act was done.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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 regulation 12?

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 what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Jam and Similar Products (Amendment) Regulations 1990.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
19 October 1990
In force from
21 November 1990
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which apply in England and Wales only, further amend the Jam and Similar Products Regulations 1981 (“the principal Regulations”). These Regulations implement Council Directive No. 88/593/EEC (OJ No. L318, 25.11.88, p. 44) which amends Council Directive No. 79/693/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and chestnut puree (OJ No. L205, 13.8.79, p. 5). The Regulations also make other provision for products to which the Directives do not apply. The principal changes introduced by the Regulations are– a the definition of “fruit” is amended so as to include carrots and sweet potatoes (regulation 3); b the definition of “fruit juice” is amended so as to include concentrated and dried fruit juice (regulation 3); c the permitted treatments of and additions to fruit juice used in the preparation of the foods covered by the principal Regulations are defined by reference to the requirements of the Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars Regulations 1977 (regulations 6 and 7); d a labelling requirement in relation to residual sulphur dioxide is prescribed for the foods, other than extra jam and extra jelly, covered by the principal Regulations (regulation 4); e foods for diabetics are excluded from the labelling requirement in relation to soluble solids content (regulation 5); f the prescribed name “sweetened chestnut puree” is substituted for “chestnut puree” (regulations 7(1) and 8); g changes are made as to the treatment of ingredients (regulation 7(2)); h amended descriptions of the composition of fruit curd and fruit flavour curd are substituted in Schedule 1 of the principal Regulations (regulation 9); i the name “lemon cheese” is added to the list of names of foods in Schedule 1 of the principal Regulations (regulation 9); j changes are made as to the permitted use of red fruit juice and pectin and amidated pectin as additional ingredients (regulation 11). The changes made in the principal Regulations come into force on 31st December 1990. Until then regulation 12 provides that a defendant shall not be convicted of an offence under the principal Regulations (in their unamended form) unless it is proved that his act would have constituted an offence had the amendments made by these Regulations been in force.

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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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