UK Offence Report

13 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of…

article 13 of The Enzootic Bovine Leukosis Order 1997

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

13 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Order or

a notice or licence served under it 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
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

13 Any person who, without lawful authority or excuse contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Order or a notice or licence served under it shall be guilty of an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981.

What would breach article 13?

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. Being served with a notice under the Enzootic Bovine Leukosis Order 1997 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  2. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  3. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

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 Enzootic Bovine Leukosis (Wales) Order 2006
Revoked on
31 March 2006
Made
11 March 1997
In force from
1 April 1997
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 revokes and re-enacts the Enzootic Bovine Leukosis Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/79 as amended by S.I. 1995/13). The Order implements the provisions relating to milk of Council Directive 64/432/EEC, as amended (on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine) (O.J. No. L121, 29.7.64, p. 1977) and Council Directive 77/391/EEC, as amended, (introducing Community measures for the eradication of brucellosis, tuberculosis and leukosis (O.J. No. L145, 13.6.77, p.44). These Directives require the operation of a monitoring and testing programme in order to achieve officially enzootic bovine leukosis-free status. Notice must be given to the Divisional Veterinary Manager if any animal, carcase or laboratory sample is found to be infected with enzootic bovine leukosis (articles 2, 3 and 4). The principal changes made by this Order relate to the arrangements for testing milk for evidence of enzootic bovine leukosis. Schedule 1 to the Order lists those laboratories which have been approved by the Minister to carry out testing of milk for enzootic bovine leukosis. Article 5 sets out the duties of purchasers of milk in any form for resale to ensure that milk is sent for testing to one of the approved laboratories. The person in charge of an approved laboratory must notify the Minister of any positive test results within 24 hours and negative test results within one month. He must also maintain records of all the tests carried out for a period of one year from the date of the test (article 5(4)). Failure to comply with any provision of the Order is an offence under the Animal Health Act 1981. A Cost Compliance Assessment in relation to this Order has been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament and copies can be obtained from the Animal Health (Disease Control) Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Government Buildings, Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF.

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