UK Offence Report

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he…

regulation 7(1) of The Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands Regulations 1996

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he contravenes or fails to comply with

a provision of these Regulations.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of these Regulations.

What would breach regulation 7(1)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands Regulations 1996, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (1996-10-11); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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 Potatoes Originating in The Netherlands Regulations 1997
Revoked on
11 October 1997
Made
10 October 1996
In force from
11 October 1996
Extent
E+W+S

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, which extend to Great Britain, impose certain requirements in respect of potatoes grown in 1996 in the Netherlands in accordance with Commission Decision 95/506/EC (OJ No. L291, 6.12.95, p. 48), authorizing Member States to take additional measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum(Smith) Smith as regards the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as amended by Commission Decision 96/599/EC (OJ No. L265, 18.10.96, p. 18). The Seed Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands (Notification) (Scotland) Order 1995 and the Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands Order 1995 are revoked (regulation 2). The Regulations require any person intending to import potatoes originating in the Netherlands to give at least two days' prior notification in writing of that intention and to provide specified information. They require any person who imported potatoes originating in the Netherlands before the commencement of these Regulations to give written notification by 18th October 1996 of corresponding information relating to those imports (regulation 4). The Regulations provide that an inspector who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has or will have in his possession potatoes originating in the Netherlands may exercise the powers conferred by articles 22 to 25 of the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 in respect of such potatoes (regulation 5). They prescribe that a fee of £116 shall be payable where a sample of seed potatoes is taken in exercise of those powers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the potatoes are infected with Pseudomonas solanacearum(Smith) Smith (except where the power to take a sample has previously been exercised for that purpose in respect of other potatoes of the same variety grown on the same holding by the same producer) (regulation 6). A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of the Regulations is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 (regulation 7). A Compliance Cost Assessment in relation to these Regulations has been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and copies can be obtained from the Plant Health Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Foss House, Kings Pool, 1—2 Peasholme Green, York YO1 2PX.

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