UK Offence Report

Application of criminal offences to the Crown

regulation 25A(3) of The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation (Amendment) Regulations 2018

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

3 The High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session may, on the application of

a person appearing to the court to have an interest, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which would, but for paragraph (1), constitute an offence under these Regulations.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 regulation 25A(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 Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

Penalty

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

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
21 March 2018
In force from
18 April 2018
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 are part of a package of measures to transpose Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (OJ No. L13, 17.1.2014) laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. The Regulations extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. Regulations 3 to 24 contain amendments to the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 (the “2004 Regulations”). In summary: a regulation 5 of these Regulations amends regulation 4 of the 2004 Regulations. It sets out a new definition of when a class or type of practice will be “new”, as well as what “justified” means in relation to a class or type of practice. It also sets out new requirements for the making of justification decisions in respect of classes or types of practice involving both occupational and public exposures and in respect of classes or types of practice involving medical exposure; b regulation 7 amends regulation 6 to add a requirement for the Justifying Authority to be functionally separate from all other persons concerned with the promotion or utilisation of practices in relation to which the Justifying Authority is exercising functions; c regulation 9 amends regulation 10 to require the Justifying Authority to consider carrying out a review of an existing class or type of practice where new and important evidence about it is acquired; d regulation 14 amends regulation 20 to prohibit practices involving the activation of materials used in toys or personal ornaments where that may increase their radioactivity. It also prohibits the import and export of such products and materials; e regulation 15 inserts new regulations 20A and 20B, which set out requirements relating to consumer products whose intended use would constitute a practice. They also describe when a class or type of practice involving activation of material in a consumer product is considered to be “new”; f regulation 16 amends regulation 21 to preserve an exemption from the requirement for justification at the class- or type-level for medical exposures that are permitted by the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017, but to exclude from the exemption imaging exposures carried out for non-medical purposes; g regulation 17 inserts new regulations 21A to 21G, which introduce specific requirements for persons carrying out non-medical imaging exposures not using medical radiological equipment (an “imaging practice”). Regulation 21C sets out a procedure for seeking a justification determination in respect of an imaging practice. New imaging practices must be subjected to this procedure before they can be carried out. Regulation 21D requires persons carrying out imaging practices either to ensure that each individual exposure is justified or to carry out regular reviews. Regulation 21E sets out the process for the granting of approvals to persons carrying out imaging practices and the establishing of specific requirements that are contained in those approvals. Regulation 21F sets out requirements for dose constraints for imaging practices. Regulation 21G imposes information and consent requirements on the carrying out of imaging practices; h regulation 19 inserts new regulation 23A, which obliges the Justifying Authority to establish an inspection programme and to ensure that the findings of inspections carried out under the programme are communicated to the persons concerned; i regulation 20 inserts new regulation 25A, which provides that the Crown cannot be criminally liable for a breach of any of the requirements of the 2004 Regulations; j regulation 22 inserts new regulation 28, which requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the 2004 Regulations at intervals not exceeding 5 years; k regulation 23 inserts new Schedule A1, which sets out further relevant information that is referenced in regulation 20A of the 2004 Regulations. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

This instrument became law without a debate or a vote. Under the negative procedure it took effect unless a motion to stop it succeeded, and none was tabled.

Neither House could have amended it. A statutory instrument is put to each House as a whole thing, to be approved or not; the Houses can reject an instrument or record their regret, but they cannot change a word of it. That is the constitutional position for every offence on this site.

The full procedural history →

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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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