UK Offence Report

Offences and non-compliance with notices

article 23(1) of The Brucellosis (England) 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

1 Any person who fails to comply with this Order is guilty of an offence under the Act.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 do something the instrument requires
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 23(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. On these words an offence is committed where a person fails to comply with this Order.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Brucellosis (England) Order 2015, by the time it requires it to be done.
  3. 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
Status not determined
Made
23 February 2015
In force from
1 April 2015
Extent
E

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 revokes and substantially re-enacts the Brucellosis (England) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/2055) (“the 2000 Order”) and the Brucellosis (England) (Amendment) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/618) in relation to England. It implements the provisions relating to milk of Council Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (OJ No L 121, 29.7.1964, p 1977) and Council Directive 77/391/EEC introducing Community measures for the eradication of brucellosis, tuberculosis and leucosis in cattle (OJ No L 145, 13.6.1977, p 44). These Directives require the operation of a monitoring and testing programme to maintain the “Officially Brucellosis-Free” status of Great Britain under Council Directive 64/432/EEC. The main changes to the previous regime made by this Order relate to the arrangements for testing milk for evidence of brucellosis and provision for the Secretary of State to approve veterinary surgeons to carry out the functions previously performed by veterinary inspectors under the 2000 Order. Article 3 provides for the Secretary of State to approve veterinary surgeons for the purpose of functions under the Order. Article 8(1) places a duty on those who buy milk (in any form) in England for resale from the owner or person in charge of a herd of dairy cows to ensure that on a quarterly basis a sample of milk (which includes milk from all the dairy cows in that herd whose milk is available for sale) is taken and received by an approved laboratory for testing for brucellosis. The 2000 Order previously required such testing on a monthly basis. Article 8(4) introduces a new obligation for any person who owns or keeps a herd of dairy cows in England and who offers for sale any milk or milk products derived from milk produced by that herd to ensure that 3 times a year, at times to be notified by the Secretary of State, a sample of milk from all of the cows in the herd whose milk is available for sale is taken and received by an approved laboratory for testing for brucellosis. The offences (article 23) and enforcement provisions (article 24) apply to this new obligation. An impact assessment of the effect of this instrument on the costs to business is available from the Zoonoses Policy team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR and is published with the Explanatory Memorandum alongside the instrument at www.legislation.gov.uk.

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 is “guilty of 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