UK Offence Report

1 It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,…

regulation 13(1) of The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 (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

1 It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by

a fine not exceeding level

4 on the standard scale, to fail to comply with

a notice served under regulation 7.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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.

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

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

What would breach regulation 13(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. Being served with a notice under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  2. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  3. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£2,500
Standard scale
Level 4
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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 11126 — 11126 - Various summary offences contrary to regulations under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015.(And the Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015).. 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
2 February 2015
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations provide for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. Regulation 3 imposes a duty on every keeper of a dog to have their dog microchipped and to record information on a database. In accordance with the definition of a keeper in these Regulations, a breeder is considered the first keeper of a puppy if the breeder owns the bitch that gave birth to the puppy. Accordingly the breeder is under a duty to have such a puppy microchipped in accordance with Regulation 3. Regulation 4 sets out requirements for the microchips to be used and Regulation 5 sets out the information to be recorded on a database. Regulation 6 sets out the conditions to be met by database operators. Regulation 7 gives the Secretary of State power to request information from databases. It also, in circumstances where database operators are failing to meet the requirements in regulation 6, gives the Secretary of State the power to serve a notice on database operators requiring them to cease holding themselves out as meeting the requirements of the Regulations. The notice may also require them to provide an electronic copy of the data recorded in accordance with these Regulations to the Secretary of State or to another database operator. Regulation 8 requires a new keeper to update the information on the database on the transfer of keepership and prevents a dog from being transferred to a new keeper until it has been microchipped. A new keeper who fails to update a database with the relevant details results in the dog not being properly microchipped in accordance with Regulation 3 and the new keeper being subject to enforcement action. Regulation 9 sets training standards for people who implant microchips. Regulation 10 provides for reporting of adverse reactions to, and migration of, microchips and reporting of microchip failures. Regulation 11 provides for the appointment of authorised persons to exercise powers under these Regulations. Regulation 12 gives authorised person powers to serve a notice on a keeper to microchip their dog, to microchip a dog and recover the cost of doing so from the keeper and to take possession of a dog for the purpose of microchipping it. Regulation 13 contains offences. Regulation 14 provides for appeals to the First-tier tribunal against various notices. Regulation 15 provides for offences committed by bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations. Regulations 16 and 17 make provision for consequential amendments. Regulation 18 provides for a review of these Regulations within five years of their coming into force. A draft of these Regulations was notified on 3rd March 2014 to the European Commission in accordance with the Technical Standards Directive (Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC). A full impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business, and the voluntary sector is available on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk) or from the Department for Food and Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR 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

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens; the provision says the conduct is “punishable”
Confidence
0.90 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