UK Offence Report

Sale of Game

article 5 of The Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007

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

5 After section

3 of the Game Act 1831 (penalty for killing or taking game on certain days and during certain seasons, etc.) insert— Sale of birds of game 3A

1 If any person—

a sells or offers or exposes for sale, or

b has in his possession or transports for the purposes of sale, any bird of game to which this subsection applies, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding six months or to both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
selling or supplying something the instrument restricts
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no fault word in the offence-creating words, but the surrounding provision uses has reason to believe - which element it governs was not determined.

What would breach article 5?

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. Selling the goods under the Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
  2. Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
  3. Offering for sale counts as well as selling: displaying stock is enough where the provision reaches an offer.

Penalty

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

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2007-08-01); 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
12 July 2007
In force from
1 August 2007
Extent
E+W

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.

This Order is made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It amends the Game Act 1831 and the Deer Act 1991, repeals the Game Licences Act 1860, and: a removes the requirement to hold a game licence in order to take or kill game; b removes the requirement to hold a local authority licence and an excise licence (dealing licences) in order to deal in game; and c removes the restrictions on dealing in game birds and venison during the close season, permitting game to be sold by everyone all year round provided that the animal in question was lawfully killed. Articles 2 and 3 make amendments relating to game licences. Article 2 amends the Game Act 1831 and article 3 repeals the Game Licences Act 1860. Together they remove the requirement to obtain a game licence to kill or take game and the requirement to obtain a local authority licence and an excise licence to deal in game. Article 4 repeals section 4 of the Game Act 1831 under which it was an offence to buy or sell game birds at certain times of the year. Article 5 replaces this with a new offence of selling, offering or exposing for sale, possessing or transporting for the purposes of sale any game bird that has been killed or taken in contravention of the legislation listed in new section 3A(2), where the person concerned knows, or has reason to believe, it had been so taken or killed. Article 6 introduces the Schedule. Part 1 of the Schedule makes consequential repeals and revocations. This includes removing the seasonal restriction on the selling of venison by unlicensed persons found in the Deer Act 1991. This will mean that venison can be sold by any person all year round, providing it is lawfully sourced. Part 1 also removes the record keeping requirements relating to the sale and purchase of venison found in section 11 of the Deer Act 1991. Part 2 of the Schedule makes consequential amendments to the Deer Act 1991. A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared and placed in the library of each House of Parliament. Copies can be obtained from Defra (Wildlife Species Conservation Division), Temple Quay House (Zone 1/11), 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EB.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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