UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 5 of The Animal Feed (Basic Safety Standards) (England) Regulations 2019

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 Any person who contravenes regulation

3 or regulation

4 is guilty of an offence and liable to the penalties referred to in section 74A(3) of the Agriculture Act 1970.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (intentionally) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

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

Classifier’s reasoning: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses intentionally; which element that governs was not determined.

What would breach regulation 5?

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 contravenes regulation 3 or regulation 4.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Animal Feed (Basic Safety Standards) (England) Regulations 2019, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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
25 March 2019
In force from
17 April 2019
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 transposition in England of the requirements of Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5th December 2013 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 (OJ L 13, 17.1.2014, p. 1). In particular, the Regulations provide that a person commits an offence if they intentionally add any radioactive substance to animal feed during production of the feed. The Regulations also provide that a person commits an offence if they import to, or export from, the United Kingdom and animal feed to which, during production, a radioactive substance has been intentionally added. A full impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector is available from the Animal Feed, Foodborne Disease Control, Allergy and Intolerance Branch of the Food Standards Agency, Clive House, 70 Petty France, London SW1H 9EX and is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the OPSI website.

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 0.92.

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