Penalties

regulation 7 of The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Vehicles) (Disinfection of Tyres) Regulations 2001

Revoked
Strict liability
Summary only
Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairs

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

7 A person contravening any provision of these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to
a fine not exceeding level
5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding three months or to both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: 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 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 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.

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.

Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Vehicles) (Disinfection of Tyres) Regulations 2001.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine: £5,000
Standard scale: Level 5
Maximum prison (summary): 3 months

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2001-03-10); 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.

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: Revoked
Revoked by: The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Vehicles) (Disinfection of Tyres) (No. 2) Regulations 2001
Revoked on: 22 October 2001
Made: 9 March 2001
In force from: 10 March 2001
Extent: E+W+S+NI

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

These Regulations implement in the United Kingdom Article 10(2) of Commission Decision 2001/190/EC amending Commission Decision 2001/172/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom (OJ No. L67, 9.3.2001, p.88). The Regulations impose, for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, an obligation on the managing body of a port or, where there is an operator of a seaport terminal that operator, to ensure that no road vehicle is transported to a destination outside the British Islands through that port or terminal unless the tyres of that vehicle have been treated with an approved disinfectant (regulation 3). A power is conferred on inspectors to enter land or premises and to carry out examinations for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any contravention of the Regulations (regulation 4). Obstruction is an offence (regulation 5) and company directors and others can be punished for an offence by a body corporate (regulation 6). Breach of the Regulations is punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to £5,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both (regulation 7). The Regulations are enforced in England, Wales and Scotland by the Minister or the local authority and in Northern Ireland by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (regulation 8).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Where a body corporate (other than in Scotland) is guilty of an offence under these Regulations, and that…regulation 6(1)

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Export of Vehicles) (Disinfection of Tyres) Regulations 2001 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 2001