UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 7 of The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

7 If any person–

a sells any food to which the labelling requirements of Regulation 1139/98 or of Regulation 50/2000 apply which is not marked or labelled with the GMO particulars, except in the case of any food to which regulation 5(3) applies and in respect of which alternative particulars are displayed in accordance with regulation 5(4),

b sells any food which is not marked or labelled in accordance with regulation 4,

5 or 6, or

c places on the market any novel food or novel food ingredient in respect of which the additional requirements relating to consumer information set out in Article 8(1) of Regulation 258/97 have not been met, he shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
selling or supplying something the instrument restricts
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

In any proceedings for an offence under these Regulations, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove– a 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 it complies with that legislation; and b in the case of export to a member St

What would breach regulation 7?

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. Selling the goods under the Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
  2. Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
  3. Offering for sale counts as well as selling: displaying stock is enough where the provision reaches an offer.

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 (2000-04-10); 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 Genetically Modified Food (England) Regulations 2004
Revoked on
4 October 2004
Made
16 March 2000
In force from
10 April 2000
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, which apply to England only, make continued provision for the enforcement of– a Council Regulation (EC) No. 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication, on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms, of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, and b the labelling requirements in Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (as read with Articles 1 and 2 of that Regulation). These Regulations also make provision for the enforcement of– a Commission Regulation (EC) No. 49/2000 which amended Regulation 1139/98; and b Commission Regulation (EC) No. 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms. The products covered by Regulation 1139/98 are foods and food ingredients which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer, having been produced in whole or in part from genetically modified soya beans or genetically modified maize, as referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. Regulation 49/2000 extended the scope of Regulation 1139/98 to cover sales to mass caterers and established a de minimis threshold of 1% for adventitious contamination of an ingredient with material derived from genetically modified organisms. Regulation 50/2000 also applies in the case of food and food ingredients intended for final consumers and mass caterers. Regulation 1139/98, as amended, and Regulation 50/2000 contain transitional provisions. The labelling requirements in Regulation 258/97 are to ensure the final consumer is informed of any characteristic or food property rendering a novel food or novel food ingredient no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient; of the presence in the novel food or food ingredient of material which is not present in an existing equivalent foodstuff and which may have implications for the health of certain sections of the population or give rise to ethical concerns; and of the presence of a genetically modified organism. Regulations 1139/98, as amended, and 50/2000 were made pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. Pursuant to Articles 11 and 13 of that Directive, these Regulations– a contain an exemption from the need to be labelled with the particulars required by those EC Regulations in the case of small packages and certain indelibly marked glass bottles (regulation 3(4)); and b make provision as to the manner of marking or labelling in the case of the particulars required by those Regulations (regulations 4 to 6). Further to Article 12 of that Directive, these Regulations– a allow alternative labelling arrangements instead of the particulars required by those EC Regulations in the case of sales to the final consumer by appropriate premises of food which is prepacked for direct sale or not prepacked (regulation 5); and b contain transitional arrangements in respect of sales of such food to the final consumer or to a mass caterer by analogy with Article 4(1) of Regulation 1139/98, Article 2 of Regulation 49/2000 and Article 5 of Regulation 50/2000 (regulation 13). These Regulations also– a create offences and prescribe a penalty (regulation 7), contain exemptions (regulation 3) and specify enforcement authorities (regulation 8); b provide a defence in relation to exports, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 89/397/EEC (OJ No. L186, 30.6.89, p.23) on the official control of foodstuffs, as read with the ninth recital to that Directive (regulation 9); c incorporate specified provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (regulation 10); and d make consequential amendments of other legislation in relation to England (regulations 11 and 12). A Regulatory Impact Assessment, which includes a compliance cost assessment of the effect which these Regulations would have on business costs, has been prepared and placed in the Library of each House of Parliament. Copies may be obtained from the Additives and Novel Foods Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Room 239c, Ergon House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.

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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
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