UK Offence Report

Punishment of offences

regulation 69(2) of The Feedingstuffs (Zootechnical Products) Regulations 1998 (revoked)

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

2 Any person who commits any of the offences set out in regulation 68(b) shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

The defence, as drafted

nufactured or assembled so as not to comply with his order, it shall be a defence for him to prove— a that, in placing his order, a copy of the documents relating to the manufacture and assembly of the product were available, or had been provided, to that other person and the person responsible for putting the product into circulation had instructed that o

What would breach regulation 69(2)?

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. On these words an offence is committed where a person commits any of the offences set out in regulation 68(b).
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Feedingstuffs (Zootechnical Products) Regulations 1998.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown 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 (1998-05-06); 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
Status not determined
Made
9 April 1998
In force from
6 May 1998
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, insofar as they relate to zootechnical additives and products with zootechnical additives in them, the provisions of Council Directive 70/524/EEC, as last amended by Council Directive 96/51/EC, on additives in feedingstuffs, and of Council Directive 95/69/EC which lay down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector. A zootechnical additive is an additive which is classified as an antibiotic, a coccidiostat or other medicinal substance, or a growth promoter and which is used for eventual incorporation in a feedingstuff. The Regulations set out the requirements for applications for Community authorisation of zootechnical additives (regulations 6 to 9) and the approval of establishments (regulations 10 to 17) and intermediaries (regulations 18 to 25). The Regulations control the manufacture and marketing of zootechnical additives, zootechnical premixtures (i.e. mixtures of additives in compound feedingstuffs) and zootechnical feedingstuffs (regulations 26 to 62). These Regulations set fees for the examination of dossiers (regulation 9) and for the approval of establishments (regulation 15) and intermediaries (regulation 23). Supplementary provisions (regulations 63 to 75) include provisions for offences (regulation 69) and penalties (regulation 70). The application of the Medicines Act 1968 to zootechnical products is excluded except in relation to animal test certificates for unauthorised zootechnical additives (regulation 74). A Regulatory Appraisal 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