UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 9(1) of The Zoonoses (Monitoring) (England) Regulations 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

1 A person commits an offence if he—

a administers any treatment to an animal with the intention of disguising any zoonosis or zoonotic agent;

b defaces, obliterates or removes any mark applied under regulation 5(c);

c removes or intentionally damages any equipment placed on premises under regulation 5(e);

d fails to comply with regulation 6(1);

e intentionally obstructs any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations;

f gives any information that he knows to be false or misleading to any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations;

g fails, without reasonable excuse—

i to give any assistance or information that any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations may require him to give, or

ii to produce any record that any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations may require him to produce, for the performance of that person’s functions under these Regulations.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally, with the intention of; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

the execution or enforcement of these Regulations; g fails, without reasonable excuse— i to give any assistance or information that any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations may require him to give, or ii to produce any record that any person acting in the execution or enforcement of these Regulations may require h

What would breach regulation 9(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Zoonoses (Monitoring) (England) Regulations 2007.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

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 (2007-10-01); 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
13 August 2007
In force from
1 October 2007
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 these Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations provide inspectors with powers of entry to monitor for zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance to zoonotic agents and other agents that pose a threat to public health, as required by Directive 2003/99/EC (on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC) (regulation 4). Regulation 5 sets out what inspectors may do on those premises, including take samples, examine records and make inquiries of any person. Regulation 6 requires food business operators involved in primary production to preserve isolates that have been tested for a zoonosis and to keep the results of those tests and provide them to the Secretary of State on demand. Regulation 7 requires the Secretary of State to consult Natural England in relation to any programme for the monitoring of zoonosis or zoonotic agents in wild animals that includes sampling of live wild animals or their nests or resting places. Regulation 8 deals with enforcement. Regulation 9 creates offences for obstructing an inspector and sets out the applicable penalties. A transposition note and full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector is available from Surveillance, Zoonoses and Emerging Issues Division, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Area 707, 1A Page Street, London SW1P 4PQ or from the Defra website www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/zoonoses/directive.htm and is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the Office of Public Sector Information website.

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 “commits 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