UK Offence Report

Seizure and disposal of products and requirements to recover

paragraph 6(5) of SCHEDULE 3 of The Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012

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 A notice served under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) must—

a state that the authorised person is of the opinion that

a person is committing, has committed or is likely to commit an offence contrary to these Regulations and specify the offence;

b specify why the authorised person is of that opinion;

c identify any plant protection product or treated item to which the notice relates; and

d state the quantity of any plant protection product or treated item to which the notice relates.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 authorised person
Conduct
breaching the provision
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 authorised 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

ions, other than in relation to regulation 23(1)(a) or (2), it is a defence for the person charged to prove that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. 2 A person is to be taken to have established the defence provided by paragraph (1) if they prove— a that they acted under instructions given to

What would breach paragraph 6(5) 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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012.

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

The Ministry of Justice records offences under this instrument against offence code 9825 — 09825 - Triable either way offences under Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012. That code may cover several provisions of the instrument, so a count against it is not a count of prosecutions under this provision alone.

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have their own code in the MoJ’s Outcomes by Offence data tool. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
20 June 2012
In force from
Not determined
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 Regulation) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, as respects the United Kingdom, transpose Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (OJ No L309, 24.11.2009, p.71)(“the Directive”) and provide enforcement provisions. The Directive applies to pesticides that are plant protection products as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ No L309, 24.11.2009, p.1)(“PPPs”) and requires a common legal framework to be established for achieving a sustainable use of pesticides, taking account of precautionary and preventive approaches. The terms and expressions used in these Regulations are defined in regulation 2, including a definition of “the appropriate United Kingdom competent authority” (“UKCA”). Regulation 3 requires the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of these Regulations as they have effect in relation to England and Wales and to publish a report within five years after they come into force and within every five years after that. Following a review it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider whether the Regulations, as they have effect in relation to England and Wales, should remain as they are, or be revoked or be amended. A further instrument would be needed to revoke the Regulations or to amend them. Regulation 4 requires the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Department to adopt a National Action Plan and to revise it as necessary. Regulations 5 and 6 require the UKCA to designate the bodies to implement certification systems for training and the bodies responsible for implementing inspection systems for PPP application equipment respectively. The former provides for the withdrawal of certificates and deems training bodies as designated. The latter also deals with the registration of inspectors and certification of equipment. Regulation 7 provides that the UKCA is the competent authority in relation aerial spraying and that the Civil Aviation Authority is the competent authority for certifying the operator responsible for providing aerial spray applications. Regulation 8 prohibits the use of PPPs authorised for professional use unless the user holds a specified certificate or works under supervision except for those who are not required to hold certificates of competence by existing legislation. This exemption will not be available after 25th November 2015. Regulation 9 requires distributors who sell to end-users to have sufficient staff who hold specified certificates to provide information at the time of sale. Micro-distributors are excluded from this requirement. It also prohibits purchase for use by a person who does not hold a certificate or work under supervision. Regulation 10 provides that PPPs may only be used if all reasonable precautions are taken to protect human health and the environment, if the application is confined to the target area and, when used in specified places, if use is minimised. Preference must be given to certain products in specified situations (regulation 10(3) and the UKCA must include a requirement for buffer zones in PPP authorisation where necessary. Regulations 11 to 14 deal with the inspection of PPP application equipment. Regulations 15 and 16 prohibit aerial spraying, unless permitted by an aerial spraying permit, and require the pilot and permit holder to comply with certain conditions. Requirements are imposed regarding the provision of information when applying for an aerial permit. Regulation 17 requires reasonable precautions to be taken in relation to the storing, handling and mixing of PPPs and related activities. Regulation 18 enables the UKCA to issue a code of practice and Regulations 19 to 23 set out enforcement provisions. Regulation 24 creates a criminal offence of contravention or failure to comply with regulations 8 to 17, 22, 23 and 31. Regulation 25 makes provision in relation to offence by bodies corporate and Regulation 26 provides, in relation to certain regulations, the defence of having taken all reasonable precautions and having exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence. Regulation 27 sets out the penalties for offences under these Regulations and regulation 28 gives effect to Schedule 4 (service of documents). Regulation 29 provides that the Scottish Ministers may make agency agreements with the Secretary of State and Regulation 30 describes the circumstances in which an authorised person may perform his or her functions in relation to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest. Regulation 31 sets out the transitional provisions and regulation 32 provides for the amendments set out in Schedule 6 making changes to enforcement provisions and revokes the Plant Protection Products (Basic Condition) Regulations 1997 and the Plant Protection Products (Basic Condition) Regulation (Northern Ireland) 1997. An impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs to business and the voluntary sector is available publically on the Impact Assessment Library http://www.ialibrary.bis.gov.uk/ and is published with the Explanatory Memorandum alongside the instrument on www.legislation.gov.uk.

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 “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