UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 7(b) of The Medicines (Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994

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

b in any other case, he shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Legal burden on the defendant

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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

In any proceedings for an offence under these Regulations, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or by a person acting under his direction.

What would breach regulation 7(b)?

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 Medicines (Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
21 November 1994
In force from
31 December 1994
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 implement Article 4.1 (part), 4.3 (part), 4.4 and 4.5 (part) of Council Directive 81/851/EEC (OJ No. L317, 6.11.81, p.1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (“the Directive”) as amended by Council Directive 90/676/EEC (OJ No. L373, 31.12.90, p.15), and Article 2.1 (part) of Council Directive 92/74/EEC (OJ No. L297, 13.10.92, p.12) widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal products. The Regulations prohibit the administration of unlicensed veterinary medicinal products to animals except for specified purposes such as medicinal tests or where the Medicines (Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Veterinary Surgeons from Other EEA States) Regulations 1994 apply (regulation 4) or in specified circumstances to avoid causing unacceptable suffering to an animal (regulation 5). Additional rules apply where unlicensed products are administered to food-producing animals (regulation 5(2)), but less restrictions are applied in the case of treatment of minor or exotic species which are non-food-producing (regulation 5(3)). The Regulations are to be enforced by the Ministers having a duty to enforce the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 and each of those Ministers is then an “enforcement authority” under the Act (regulation 6(1)). Certain enforcement provisions of the Act are applied and offences and penalties are prescribed (regulations 6(2) and 7 to 9). The Regulations make consequential amendments to sections 9 and 10 of the Medicines Act 1968 so as to provide that the exemptions from licensing granted to veterinary surgeons, veterinary practitioners and pharmacists do not extend to anything done in relation to ready-made veterinary medicinal products, which the Directive requires to be licensed. The only unlicensed products permitted to be administered to animals are as provided by the Directive and reflected in these Regulations, which include in certain circumstances products prepared extemporaneously, known as “veterinary specials” (regulations 10 and 11). The Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Special Cases and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1972 is amended accordingly (regulation 12). The Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1991 are also amended so as to allow an unlicensed substance within the meaning of those Regulations to be administered in accordance with the exemptions in these Regulations, and a further consequential amendment is made to the definition of “veterinary medicinal product” (regulation 13). The Medicines (Restriction on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1983 are revoked (regulation 14). A Compliance Cost Assessment has been prepared and a copy has been placed in the library of each House of Parliament.

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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence
0.72 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