UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Contaminants in Food Regulations 1997

the instrument as a whole of The Contaminants in Food Regulations 1997

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

Contravening this instrument is an offence under sections 10(2), 33 and 35 of the Food Safety Act 1990. The instrument itself contains no offence-creating words.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
dealing with funds or making them available in breach of sanctions
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Not determined

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.

Classifier’s reasoning: contravention offences of this kind are strict as to the breach; the fault position is governed by the parent Act and was not read from it.

What would breach the instrument as a whole?

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. Moving, converting or paying away funds that belong to a designated person under the Contaminants in Food Regulations 1997, without a licence from the Treasury.
  2. Making funds or economic resources available to a designated person - which includes paying a third party who will pass on the benefit.
  3. Dealing with an asset in ignorance of the designation is still caught where the provision imposes no knowledge requirement; check the fault element stated below before assuming otherwise.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to sections 10(2), 33 and 35 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

the penalty is in the parent Act, not in this instrument.

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
10 June 1997
In force from
4 July 1997
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 to Great Britain, make provision for the enforcement and execution of Commission Regulation (EC) No 194/97 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (“the Commission Regulation”). These Regulations— a provide that it is an offence to contravene Article 2.1 of the Commission Regulation (placing on the market lettuce or spinach containing higher than specified levels of contaminants) save where the marketing is of authorised lettuce or spinach as defined in that regulation and also prescribe a penalty for the offence (regulation 3); b specify the enforcement authorities (regulation 4); c provide a defence in relation to exports in implementation of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 89/397 EEC (OJ No. L186, 30.6.89, p.23) on the official control of foodstuffs, as read with the ninth recital to that Directive (regulation 5); and d provide for the application of specified provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (regulation 6). Article 5 of the Commission Regulation provides that preserved, deep frozen or frozen spinach already on the market on 15th February 1997 which does not conform to the provisions of the Regulation may continue to be marketed until stocks are exhausted. A Compliance Cost Assessment of the effect that these Regulations would have on the cost of business is available from the Food Contaminants Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ergon House c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.

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 0.70.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.70 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