UK Offence Report

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he…

regulation 7(1) of The Potatoes Originating in Egypt (England) Regulations 2004 (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

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 4(1).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, he contravenes or fails to comply with regulation 4(1).

What would breach regulation 7(1)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (England) Regulations 2004, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. 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 (2004-05-15); 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
19 April 2004
In force from
15 May 2004
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.

These Regulations, which apply only in relation to England, consolidate with amendments the Potatoes Originating in Egypt Regulations 1998 (“the 1998 Regulations”). The Regulations implement Commission Decision 2004/4/EC (OJ No. L2, 6.1.2004, p.50) authorising Member States temporarily to take additional measures against the dissemination of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith (now known as Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.) as regards Egypt (“the Decision”). The Decision permits potatoes originating in Egypt, other than seed potatoes, to be imported into England only if the measures laid down in the Decision are complied with. It consolidates and repeals Commission Decision 96/301/EC (as amended). Regulation 3(1) makes provision in respect of the phytosanitary certificate required by the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (“the 1993 Order”) to accompany imports of potato tubers into England, and without which such imports are prohibited. In the case of potatoes originating in Egypt, the certificate must comply with the additional requirements imposed by the Decision. Any person who imports such potatoes without a valid phytosanitary certificate in contravention of the prohibition imposed by the 1993 Order with intent to evade such prohibition is guilty of an offence under section 50(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) and may be arrested. Any person found guilty of such an offence under section 50(3) is liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty of £5,000 or of three times the value of the goods, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both; or, on conviction on indictment, to a penalty of any amount, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to both. This offence replaces the similar offence contained in the 1998 Regulations. A person found guilty of the offence under the 1998 Regulations would be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £5,000. Regulation 3(2) removes, in respect of imports of potatoes originating in Egypt, the requirement under the 1993 Order for imports of potatoes to be accompanied by an official statement that the potatoes originate in areas where Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. is not known to occur. Regulation 4 imposes a requirement for premises (other than certain premises used for the packing or preparation of potatoes for delivery to the final consumer) used for treating potatoes originating in Egypt to be approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. Failure to comply with this requirement is an offence carrying liability on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000) (regulation 7). Regulation 5 makes provision for the enforcement of the Regulations by inspectors and regulation 6 provides the Secretary of State with a power to charge a fee of £37.50 for the taking of samples from potatoes originating in Egypt to ascertain whether they are infected with Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. in accordance with the Decision. This is unchanged from the fee payable in respect of such sampling under the 1998 Regulations. No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared for these Regulations.

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