UK Offence Report

4 A person shall be guilty of an offence if he dishonestly alters a plant passport affixed to susceptible…

article 12(4) of The Plant Health (Forestry) ("Phytophthora ramorum") (Great Britain) (No. 2) Order 2002

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

4 A person shall be guilty of an offence if he dishonestly alters

a plant passport affixed to susceptible material or re-uses

a plant passport for susceptible material not the material for which the plant passport was issued.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (dishonestly).

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

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: dishonestly.

What would breach article 12(4)?

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. On these words an offence is committed where a person dishonestly alters a plant passport affixed to susceptible material or re-uses a plant passport for susceptible material not the material for which the plant passport was issued.
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Plant Health (Forestry) ("Phytophthora ramorum") (Great Britain) (No. 2) Order 2002.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

the level is stated but no money value is given: this instrument extends outside the United Kingdom, where the standard scale set by s.122(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 does not run.

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
Status not determined
Made
15 October 2002
In force from
5 November 2002
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

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order implements Commission Decision 2002/757/EC of 19th September 2002 (OJ L. 252, 20.9.2002, p. 37) in Great Britain insofar as it relates to forest trees, wood and bark. It revokes the Plant Health (Forestry) (Phytophthora ramorum) (Great Britain) Order 2002 (SI 2002/1478) (article 13). The Order prohibits the introduction and spread of the plant pest, Phytophthora ramorum, a fungus identified as causing Sudden Oak Death syndrome in species of oak in the USA and harm to other species of plants (article 3). It imposes landing controls on plants and wood of four species of forest tree, Acer macrophyllum Pursh., Aesculus californica Nutt., Lithocarpus densiflorus (H & A) and Quercus L. Plant material and wood of this description which originates in the USA and is despatched to the EC after 5th November 2002 must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued in compliance with the various requirements of the Schedule (article 4 and the Schedule). Imports of such material must be notified to an inspector at least three days before landing. The Order extends the ban in the principal Order on imports of isolated bark of Quercus to the other susceptible species. The Order also imposes a requirement for imports from the USA of such susceptible trees to be accompanied by a plant passport when moving within Great Britain or to another part of the UK, or elsewhere in the EC, including the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Such material despatched from the USA before 5th November 2002 is not subject to this Order (article 6), but the controls of the revoked Forestry Phytophthora ramorum Order will continue to apply to such material despatched from the USA before 5th November 2002 and which enters Great Britain after 5th November 2002 (article 13). There is provision (article 10) for licensed importation, movement and keeping of the prohibited pest for research purposes. Inspectors' enforcement powers are provided for in article 11, and offences similar to those created in the principal Order are created in respect of the production of plant passports pursuant to this Order. Offences are also created in respect of the spread of the pest and compliance with the key provisions of the Order (article 12). No regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken in respect of the measures in this Order.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same 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”
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