UK Offence Report

Salmon carcass tagging

article 43A(6)(a) of The Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015

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

a is liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

4 on the standard scale;

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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 article 43A(6)(a)?

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 Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015.

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

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
11 February 2015
In force from
12 February 2015
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order amends the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006 (“the 2006 Order”) which makes provision for salmon and freshwater fisheries in the Tweed district. The Tweed District is defined in article 2 of the 2006 Order. This Order introduces a new enabling power to allow provision to be made for the tagging of salmon. It also makes consequential amendments to articles 51 (exemptions in relation to fish farming) and 75 (Crown application) of the 2006 Order. In addition article 75 is amended so that Part 3 of the 2006 Order (enforcement) applies to those provisions listed in article 75(1). A Business Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been carried out as this Order creates an enabling power. A Business Regulatory Impact Assessment will be prepared when the scheme is finalised and consultation on the draft Order made under article 43A of the 2006 Order is carried out.

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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction
Confidence
0.72 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