UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 17(3) of The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (England) Regulations 2006 (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 A person is guilty of an offence if without reasonable excuse he supplies to

a relevant auditor,

a relevant inspector or an enforcement officer information which, in any material particular, is false or misleading.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
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

3 A person is guilty of an offence if without reasonable excuse he supplies to a relevant auditor, a relevant inspector or an enforcement officer information which, in any material particular, is false or misleading.

What would breach regulation 17(3)?

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 supplies to a relevant auditor, a relevant inspector or an enforcement officer information which, in any material particular, is false or misleading.
  2. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food) (England) Regulations 2006.
  3. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  4. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2007-02-16); 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
28 December 2006
In force from
16 February 2007
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.

(This Note does not form part of the Regulations) These Regulations apply and enforce Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 (OJ No. L165, 30.4.2004, p.1; corrected in the corrigendum published in OJ No. L191, 28.5.2004, p. 1) (“Regulation 882/2004”) in England in relation to animal health and welfare rules, and feed and food law excluded from the Official Feed and Food Controls Regulations (England) 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”), which also apply and enforce Regulation 882/2004. These Regulations provide for the designation of the Secretary of State and local authorities (including food authorities) as competent authorities for the purposes of Article 4.1 of Regulation 882/2004 (regulations 3 to 5). The designations relate to: a animal health and welfare rules; b food law which concerns controls on animals; c feed law not listed in Schedule 3 to the 2006 Regulations; and d food law concerning controls on food excluded from the designations in the 2006 Regulations, namely: i organic foods, including imported organic food products; ii protected name food products and specific character food products; iii veterinary medicines residues; iv pesticides residues; v the import from third countries of, and intra-Community trade in, products of animal origin; and vi beef labelling. They also relate to transmissible spongiform Encephalopathies (“TSEs”) in relation to testing (including sampling) controls on bovine, ovine and caprine animals slaughtered for human consumption. The designations do not include medicated feedingstuffs and zootechnical additives, which are covered in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2407). These Regulations provide for the exchange of information between competent authorities in England and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in the European Union (regulation 6). They create independent powers for a competent authority’s auditors to conduct audits required under Article 4.6 of Regulation 882/2004 (regulation 7). Provision is made for the Secretary of State to call for information from a local authority about its audits; and for him to require an auditor to carry out an audit of that local authority’s official controls as a competent authority (regulation 8). Regulation 9 provides that where the Secretary of State arranges that the Food Standards Agency is to carry out an audit for purposes of Regulation 882/2004 of relevant legislation under these Regulations, monitoring provisions of the 2006 Regulations apply together with the corresponding enforcement provisions from the 2006 Regulations. The Regulations also supplement existing powers of inspectors so that they may bring Commission experts with them for purposes of the Commission’s own audits (regulation 10). There are provisions to facilitate assistance and co-operation between Member States required under Title IV (Articles 34 to 40) of Regulation 882/2004 (regulations 11 and 12), in particular to enable officials of the Commission and other Member States to attend with an inspector who investigates suspected breaches under the relevant legislation. Regulation 13 provides for the payment on written demand of expenses charged under Article 40.4 and Article 28 of Regulation 882/2004. Part 5 provides for the enforcement of the Regulations. It is an offence under regulation 17 to obstruct an auditor, an enforcement officer, or an inspector who brings with him representatives from the Commission or other Member States, or any persons accompanying an inspector or auditor pursuant to the Regulations. It is also an offence under regulation 17 to provide misleading or false information to, or to fail to provide information requested by, an inspector or auditor or an enforcement officer. The penalty on summary conviction for the offences is a fine at level 5 of the standard scale (currently £5,000) or three months’ imprisonment, or both (regulation 17(4)). Regulation 20 amends the 2006 Regulations to remove from the definition of “relevant food law” in so far as it applies in relation to food, Schedule 2 to the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 (“the TSE Regulations”) and certain provisions in the EU Regulation on TSEs (Regulation No. EC 999/2001 (OJ No. L147, 31.5.2001, p. 1)) relating to the monitoring of TSEs in slaughtered goats and sheep. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business has been placed in the library of both Houses of Parliament and copies can be obtained from the OFFC Implementation Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Area 204, 1A Page Street, London, SW1P 4 PQ.

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