What would breach regulation 26(2) of The Cattle Database Regulations 1998?

On these words an offence is committed where a keeper fails to do so. Not doing what the provision requires under the Cattle Database Regulations 1998, by the time it requires it to be done. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Animal deaths or lost or stolen animals

Q: Is regulation 26(2) of The Cattle Database Regulations 1998 a strict liability offence?

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 keeper meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

regulation 26(2) of The Cattle Database Regulations 1998

Status not determined
Strict liability
Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairs

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 If an animal with
a cattle passport is lost or stolen, the keeper shall send the cattle passport to the appropriate Minister within
7 days of becoming aware of the fact, together with written details of what has occurred, and any person who fails to do so shall be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 keeper
Conduct: failing to do something the instrument requires
Fault element: Strict liability
Burden of proof: No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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 keeper 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 states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach regulation 26(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.

On these words an offence is committed where a keeper fails to do so.
Not doing what the provision requires under the Cattle Database Regulations 1998, by the time it requires it to be done.
Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

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.

Animal cruelty: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2017
Covers cruelty to and neglect of animals, and the associated disqualification and deprivation orders.
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 20 July 1998
In force from: 28 September 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

These Regulations provide for the enforcement of the second indent of Article 7.1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 (OJ No. L117, 7.5.97, p.1) and Article 6.3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2629/97 (OJ No. L354, 30.12.97, p.19) which relate to the notification of birth, movement and death of cattle to a central database. It is an offence to fail to notify in accordance with that legislation and in accordance with these Regulations (regulation 5). The Regulations specify how notification must be made, and empower the Minister to charge for the provision of information stored on the database (regulations 6 to 10). The Regulations contain provisions concerning powers of entry and other powers of inspectors (regulations 11 and 12). Breach of regulation 13 (obstruction) is punishable by a fine of level 5 on the standard scale or three months imprisonment for obstruction. For other offences the penalty is— on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both; on conviction on indictment, a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both. (regulation 15). The Regulations are enforced by the local authority, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State (regulation 16). In addition, the Regulations amend the Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/871) at regulation 17. They amend regulation 13 of the Cattle Identification Regulations so as to reflect the provisions relating to notification of births in Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97. They amend Regulation 18 of the Cattle Identification Regulations to make provision for affixing bar codes to the new-style passport. They also amend regulations 26 and 27 to ensure that the times for the return of passports are the same as the times for reporting deaths. They insert a new regulation 31A to specify that the veterinary authority and the competent authority for the purposes of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 494/98 (OJ No. L60, 28.2.98, p.78) (slaughter of unmarked animals) shall be the appropriate Minister. The database and the register of approved users of electronic mail are maintained by— The British Cattle Movement Service Curwen Road Workington Cumbria A regulatory appraisal has been prepared and placed in the library of each House of Parliament. 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

What Parliament said

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

Cattle Database Commons · 10 November 1998
That the Cattle Database Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1796), dated 20th July 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— [Mr. Hanson.]
Cattle and Eggs Regulations 2006 Commons · 15 June 2006 · The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Miliband)
The Cattle Identification (Amendment) Regulations 2006, the Cattle Database (Amendment) Regulations 2006 and the Eggs (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament yesterday and entered into force today, 15 June 2006. These are technical amendments to the Cattle Identification Regulations 1998, the Cattle Database Regulations 1998, and the Eggs (Marketing…

Other offences in the same instrument

Powers to restrict movementsregulation 12
Obstructionregulation 13(1)
Application for a cattle passportregulation 13(3)
For regulations 26 and 27 there shall be substituted— Animal deaths or lost or stolen animals 26 1 If an…regulation 17(4)
Completion of cattle passports when cattle are movedregulation 18(4)
Animal deaths or lost or stolen animalsregulation 26(1)
Return of the cattle passport from slaughterhouses etcregulation 27(3)
Any person who fails to comply with the requirement to notify the birth, movement or death of any cattle in…regulation 5(1)
Any person who knowingly or recklessly provides false information in any notification made under these…regulation 5(2)

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Cattle Database Regulations 1998 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1998