UK Offence Report

Amendments to the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000

regulation 2(2) of The Feeding Stuffs, the Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) and the Feeding Stuffs (Enforcement) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2004

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

9 Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with

a request made under paragraph (8) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
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

9 Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a request made under paragraph (8) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. .

What would breach regulation 2(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 without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a request made under paragraph (8).
  2. Being served with a notice under the Feeding Stuffs, the Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) and the Feeding Stuffs (Enforcement) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
13 October 2004
In force from
19 November 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which apply in relation to England only, further amend the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/2481, as already amended), “the 2000 Regulations”. The 2000 Regulations largely apply in relation to England only. These Regulations implement Commission Directive 2003/100/EC (OJ No. L285, 1.11.2003, p.33) amending Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ No. L140, 30.5.2002, p.15) on undesirable substances in animal feed, and also implement Commission Decision 2004/217/EC (OJ No. L67, 5.3.2004, p.31) adopting a list of materials whose circulation or use for animal nutrition purposes is prohibited. Regulation 2 of these Regulations amends the 2000 Regulations by — requiring that analysis indicating the level of inorganic arsenic in certain feeding stuffs or feed materials must be provided on request to the competent authority (paragraph (2)); making detailed amendments to the list of prohibited materials set out in regulation 15 of the 2000 Regulations, and extending to the circulation or use as feed materials the existing prohibition on the circulation or use in connection with compound feeding stuffs (paragraph (3)); adding to Part IX of Schedule 3 eight new European Commission Regulations authorising new additives or new uses of certain additives in feeding stuffs, or as the case may be making permanent the existing provisional authorisation of an additive (paragraph (4)). amending the prescribed limits for undesirable substances set out in Schedule 7 of the 2000 Regulations in respect of arsenic, fluorine, lead, aflatoxin B1, free gossypol and endosulphan (paragraph (5)); Regulations 3 to 5 make consequential amendments to references to the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000 as they appear in various Regulations and in the Agriculture Act 1970. A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business has been prepared and placed in the Library of each House of Parliament together with a Transposition Note setting out how the main elements of Commission Directive 2003/100/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC are transposed into domestic law by these Regulations. Copies may be obtained from the Animal Feed Unit of the Food Standards Agency, Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH.

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