UK Offence Report

Supply by a suitably qualified person

paragraph 14(6) of SCHEDULE 3 of The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2007

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 If a suitably qualified person considers that the premises in which he is operating no longer comply with the approval granted by the Secretary of State, he must notify the Secretary of State without unreasonable delay, and failure to do so is an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 suitably qualified person
Conduct
failing to do something the instrument requires
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 suitably qualified 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.

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

an offence under these Regulations relating to advertising, it is a defence for the person charged to prove— a that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements, and b that he received the advertisement in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amoun

What would breach paragraph 14(6) of SCHEDULE 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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2007, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2008
Revoked on
1 October 2008
Made
30 August 2007
In force from
1 October 2007
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations revoke and remake with amendments the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2006. The new Regulations introduce a requirement for the registration of veterinary premises for the supply of veterinary medicinal products. They implement Commission Directive 2006/130/EC and enforce Commission Regulation (EC) No 1950/2006. They permit the advertising of POM-V medicines to veterinary nurses. They extend the provision that the holder of a Marketing Authorisation for an immunological product must submit to the Secretary of State the results of all tests carried out on each batch of the product before he places the product on the market, to require that the holder must wait for confirmation from the Secretary of State before the product is placed on the market. They control exports to other member States. They update fees. The Regulations make provision for the authorisation, manufacture, classification, distribution and administration of veterinary medicinal products. They implement Directive 2001/82/EC. They enforce Regulations (EC) No. 178/2002, No. 1831/2003, No. 882/2004, No. 183/2005, in so far as they apply to veterinary medicinal products used in feedingstuffs, and to some specified feed additives used in feedingstuffs. They implement Council Directive 90/167 so far it is not superseded by Regulation (EC) No. 183/2005. They provide that a veterinary medicinal product must have a marketing authorisation granted by the Secretary of State before being placed on the market, and make provision for the grant of a marketing authorisation (regulation 4 and Schedule 1). They specify that a veterinary medicinal product must be manufactured by a person holding a manufacturing authorisation, and make provision for granting an authorisation (regulation 5 and Schedule 2). They regulate supply and possession of veterinary medicinal products, and introduce new classifications of those products (regulation 7 and Schedule 3). They provide that a veterinary medicinal product may only be administered as specified in its marketing authorisation or, in the case of administration by a veterinary surgeon, administration under the “cascade”” (regulation 8 and Schedule 4). They control bringing a veterinary medicinal product into the United Kingdom (regulation 9) and advertising (regulation 10 to 12). They control wholesale dealing (regulation 13). They control medicated feedingstuffs and feedingstuffs containing additives specified in the Regulations (regulation 14 and Schedule 5). They provide for exemptions (regulation 15 and Schedule 6). They provide for fees (regulation 16 and Schedule 7). They require records to be kept (regulations 17 to 24). They create offences of importation, possession and supply of unauthorised veterinary medicinal products (regulations 25 to 27). They make provision for the existence of the Veterinary Products Committee (regulation 28). They make provision for an appeals procedure in the case of a refusal, etc., of a marketing authorisation (regulation 29). They create administrative arrangements for the enforcement of the Regulations (regulations 32 to 41). Under regulation 42 breach of the Regulations is an offence punishable— a on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, or b on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared and placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. It is available, together with a transposition note and a table showing fee changes, on www.vmd.gov.uk at “Publications, Veterinary Medicines Regulations and Guidance”.

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 0.88.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.88 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