UK Offence Report

For paragraph (1) of regulation 15 (offences and penalties) there is substituted the following paragraph— 1…

paragraph 7 of SCHEDULE of The Diseases of Fish (Control) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (revoked)

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

7 For paragraph (1) of regulation 15 (offences and penalties) there is substituted the following paragraph—

1 Any person (other than the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales) contravening any requirement or prohibition imposed on him by or under these Regulations 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 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 paragraph 7 of SCHEDULE?

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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Diseases of Fish (Control) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
11 February 2002
In force from
10 March 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations amend the Diseases of Fish (Control) Regulations 1994 in so far as they are applicable in England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations implemented in Great Britain Council Directive 93/53/EEC introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases (OJ No. L175, 19.7.93, p. 23) (“the Directive”). These Regulations, in addition to making various minor and consequential drafting amendments to the 1994 Regulations, implement, in relation to England and Wales, amendments to the Directive made by Council Directive 2000/27/EC (OJ No. L114, 13.5.2000, p.28). The main changes made to the 1994 Regulations are as follows— i the references to approved zones are deleted as the entirety of England and Wales is approved under Council Directive 91/67/EEC and Commission Decision 2000/188/EC (OJ No. L59, 4.3.2000, p. 17); ii regulation 5 of the 1994 Regulations, which required certain control measures to be taken when the presence of a disease listed in Part I of Schedule 3 to those Regulations is confirmed, has been replaced by a new regulation 5. This provides that where the presence of a disease listed in Part I of Schedule 3 is confirmed on a farm the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is required to issue appropriate directions as to the process and timetable for the carrying out of the control measures required to be taken by the occupier of the farm under the regulation. In issuing such directions the Secretary of State is to have regard to the scheme established by her pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive (as amended by Council Directive 2000/27/EC) and which was approved by the European Commission by Decision 2001/872/EC (OJ No. L325, 8.12.2001, p. 33). Her functions may also be exercised in relation to farms in Wales concurrently by or jointly with the National Assembly for Wales. iii regulation 7 of the 1994 Regulations, which previously required certain control measures to be taken where the presence of a disease listed in Part II of Schedule 3 was confirmed on a farm in an approved zone or on an approved farm not in an approved zone, has been replaced by a new regulation 6 which provides for control measures to be taken on any farm in England and Wales where there is confirmation of the presence of fish with such a disease. As regards the control measures to be applied, the provision for the immediate removal of fish has been replaced by provision for directions to be given as to the process of and timetable for the specified control measures to be carried out. In implementation of a derogation provided for under Article 9(3) of the Directive, these directions may include authorisation of the fattening of fish until they reach commercial size and are slaughtered for marketing or processing for human consumption; iv regulation 8 of the 1994 Regulations, which dealt with controls outside approved zones, is not replaced; v regulation 10 of the 1994 Regulations, which prohibited the vaccination of fish against the diseases listed in Schedule 3, Part I, has been amended to permit the vaccination of fish against diseases listed in Part I of Schedule 3 where the presence of such a disease has been confirmed at any place in Great Britain and the prior authorisation of the Secretary of State has been obtained; vi the power of an inspector under regulation 11 of the 1994 Regulations to enter any premises for enforcement purposes is no longer exercisable in relation to premises used exclusively as a dwelling.

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”
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