UK Offence Report

Offences by bodies corporate

regulation 12 of The Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1993

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

12 – 1 Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under these Regulations, and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of– a any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or b any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of the offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 body corporate
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 body corporate 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 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. On these words an offence is committed where a body corporate was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate.
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1993.

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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Suckler Cow Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001
Revoked on
1 July 2001
Made
7 June 1993
In force from
30 June 1993
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 apply throughout Great Britain and come into force on 30th June 1993. They make provision for the administration and enforcement of the provisions for the payment of a premium for maintaining suckler cows, under Article 4d of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 805/68 and other relevant provisions in Commission Regulation (EEC) Nos. 3886/92 and 3887/92 (which are all defined in regulation 2(1)). The Regulations– a specify the period for the submission of applications for premium and prohibit the submission of more than one application in any calendar year (regulation 3); b require applicants for premium to retain specified records and other documents (regulation 4); c confer on authorised persons powers of entry and inspection as well as powers of seizure and retention of records and require that such assistance be given to them as they may reasonably request (regulations 5 and 6); d specify circumstances in which permium paid to an applicant may be recovered by the appropriate Minister and prescribe the rate of interest payable on amounts recovered in specified circumstances (regulations 7 and 8); and e create offences, prescribe penalties, specify time limits for bringing prosecutions and make provision for dealing with offences committed by corporate bodies and Scottish partnerships (regulations 9 to 12).

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 0.64.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.64 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