UK Offence Report

Application etc. of various provisions of the Act

regulation 5(2) of The Food (Figs, Hazelnuts and Pistachios from Turkey) (Emergency Control) (England) 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

3 The authorised officer may either—

a give notice to the person in charge of the products that, until the notice is withdrawn, the products or any specified quantity of them—

i are not to be used for human consumption, and

ii either are not to be removed or are not to be removed except to some place specified in the notice; or

b seize the products and remove them in order to have them dealt with by

a justice of the peace; and any person who knowingly contravenes the requirements of

a notice under paragraph (a) above shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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

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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly.

The defence, as drafted

ses of this section, any Turkish products shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be controlled Turkish products. .

What would breach regulation 5(2)?

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 knowingly contravenes the requirements of a notice under paragraph (a) above.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Food (Figs, Hazelnuts and Pistachios from Turkey) (Emergency Control) (England) Regulations 2002, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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 (2002-03-23); 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
Status not determined
Made
21 March 2002
In force from
23 March 2002
Extent
E

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, which extend to England only, implement Commission Decision 2002/80/EC imposing special conditions on the import of figs, hazelnuts and pistachios and certain products derived thereof originating in or consigned from Turkey (OJ No. L34, 5.2.2002, p.26) as amended by Commission Decision 2002/233/EC (OJ No. L78, 21.3.2002, p.14). The categories of products which are subject to those conditions are specified in Article 1.1 of Decision 2002/80/EC. The Regulations— a prohibit the importation of any “controlled Turkish products” (defined in regulation 2(1)), except where— i they are accompanied by a Turkish Government health certificate and the results of official sampling and analysis, the importation takes place only through a specified point of entry and the consignment is identified with a code corresponding with that specified on the health certificate and on the accompanying report containing the sampling and analysis results, or ii (even though they are not accompanied by a Turkish Government health certificate or the results of official sampling and analysis) they left Turkey before 11th March 2002, the operator shows, by means of sampling and analysis in the prescribed manner, that the levels of aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxin in the products do not exceed the maximum permitted levels and the importation takes place only through a specified point of entry (regulations 2 and 3); b specify the enforcement authorities (regulation 4); and c apply, with modifications, provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (regulation 5). No regulatory impact assessment has been prepared in relation to these Regulations.

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