UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 7(1) of The Bread and Flour Regulations 1998

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 If any person contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 4(4),

5 or 6(2) he shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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.

The defence, as drafted

9 In any proceedings for an offence under these Regulations it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the food in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed was intended for export to a country which has legislation analogous to these Regulations and that the food complies with that legislation.

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 Bread and Flour Regulations 1998, 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 (1998-02-19); 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 Bread and Flour (Wales) Regulations 2025
Made
22 January 1998
In force from
19 February 1998
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations revoke and replace the Bread and Flour Regulations 1995 (“the 1995 Regulations”). These Regulations— a provide for exemptions from the Regulations (regulation 3); b require that wheat flour (subject to certain exceptions) be fortified with specified essential ingredients (regulation 4, Schedules 1 and 2); c restrict the use of specified ingredients in the preparation of flour and bread and require that an indication of the presence of a flour treatment agent be given in the case both of prepacked and of non-prepacked bread (regulation 5, Schedule 3); d reserve the names ‘wholemeal' and ‘wheat germ' for bread which complies with specified compositional requirements and prohibit the sale or advertising for sale using these names of bread which does not comply with the compositional requirements (regulation 6); e create offences and prescribe penalties (regulation 7); f specify the enforcement authorities (regulation 8); g provide a defence in relation to exports in implementation of Article 2 and 3 of, as read with the ninth recital to, Council Directive 89/397/EEC (O.J. No. L186, 30.6.89, p. 23) on the official control of foodstuffs (regulation 9); h apply various sections of the Food Safety Act 1990 (regulation 10); and i amend and revoke specified Regulations (regulations 11 and 12). The British Pharmacopoeia 1973, 1980 and 1988 and the British Pharmaceutical Codex 1973, referred to in Schedule 1 may be inspected at the British Library Lending Division Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorks LS23 7BQ, Tel. 01937 546 060 and by appointment at the library of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HH, Tel. 0171-270 8419. In addition the British Pharmacopoeia 1973, 1980 and 1988 may be inspected at the Erskine Medical Library, University of Edinburgh, Hugh Robson Building, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9XE, Tel. 0131-650 3685. The British Pharmaceutical Codex 1973 may be inspected at the National Library of Scotland, the Lending Division, 33 Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SL, Tel. 0131-226 4531 Ext. 3329.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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