UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) Order 1999

the instrument as a whole of The Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) Order 1999

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
importing or exporting without authority
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 the goods across the border under the Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) Order 1999 without the licence the instrument requires.
  2. Holding a licence for one consignment and using it for another.
  3. Sending goods in transit through the United Kingdom, where the provision catches transit as well as import and export.

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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) (England and Wales) Order 2000
Revoked on
23 February 2000
Made
24 June 1999
In force from
25 June 1999
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 is made under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990 in consequence of it appearing to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the importation of peanuts originating in or consigned from Egypt may involve imminent risk of injury to health. The Order also implements in Great Britain Commission Decision 1999/356/EC on the temporary suspension of imports of peanuts and certain products derived from peanuts originating in or consigned from Egypt (OJ No. L139, 2.6.1999, p. 32) (“the Commission Decision”). The Order– a defines, and prohibits the importation of, “Egyptian peanuts” (articles 1 and 3); b exempts from its application Egyptian peanuts which, in accordance with Article 1.2 of the Commission Decision, have been subjected to the refining process and marked as specified therein (article 2); c specifies the enforcement authorities (article 4); and d applies, with modifications, provisions of the 1990 Act (article 5). Contravention of the Order is an offence under section 13(2) of the 1990 Act. No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared.

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 0.59.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.59 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