UK Offence Report

14 A person, who, without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him), alters, removes or…

article 14 of The Diseases of Poultry Order 1994

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

14 A person, who, without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him), alters, removes or defaces any mark applied under article 6(3), shall be guilty of an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by lawful excuse (an element).

The defence, as drafted

14 A person, who, without lawful authority or excuse (proof of which shall lie on him), alters, removes or defaces any mark applied under article 6(3), shall be guilty of an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981.

What would breach article 14?

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 Diseases of Poultry Order 1994.

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 Diseases of Poultry (Wales) Order 2003
Revoked on
12 April 2003
Made
8 December 1994
In force from
1 January 1995
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order (read with the Animal Health Act 1981) implements Council Directive 92/40/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza and Council Directive 92/66/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease (OJ No L 167, 22.6.92. p.1 and L260, 5.9.92, p.1). It also makes provision in relation to disinfection and record keeping (articles 10 and 11). It also revokes several Orders concerned with poultry (Schedule 4) and makes some consequential amendments (article 15). Failure to comply with the provisions of the Order is an offence under section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981. 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

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”
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