UK Offence Report

Duty to notify the United Kingdom Health Security Agency of the results of lateral flow device tests…

regulation 4B(6) of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

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

6 It is an offence for

a test provider to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with this regulation.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

6 It is an offence for a test provider to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with this regulation.

What would breach regulation 4B(6)?

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 it is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with this regulation.
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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
6 January 2022
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 amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021/582) (“the International Travel Regulations”). Regulations 3, 7, 8 (in part), 12, 13, 14 (in part), 16 (in part) and 18 (in part) amend various provisions of the International Travel Regulations to reintroduce LFD testing as an option for day 2 tests for eligible travellers who arrive in England. Eligible travellers who receive a positive result from an LFD test are required to take a confirmatory PCR test Regulation 5 amends regulation 3ZA of the International Travel Regulations to add eligible travellers to the list of persons excluded from the requirement to possess notification of a negative test result on their arrival in England. Regulation 6 amends regulation 3A of the International Travel Regulations to add a number of entries for the purposes of the definition of “relevant country”, and to add a vaccine to the list of authorised vaccines. Regulation 8 (in part) amends regulation 3K of the International Travel Regulations to remove the requirement for eligible travellers to self-isolate on their arrival in England pending notification of the result of a day 2 test. Regulation 16 (in part) amends Schedule 8 of the International Travel Regulations to omit one of the forms of notification to be provided to a person who has undertaken a mandatory test after arrival in England. Regulation 17 amends Schedule 12 of the International Travel Regulations to update the information which operators are required to provide to passengers. Regulation 19 amends the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/659) (“the Notification Regulations”) to re-insert regulation 4B, which imposes an obligation to notify the United Kingdom Health Security Agency of certain information in relation to LFD tests. Regulation 19 also makes further minor and consequential amendments to the Notification Regulations. These Regulations make further minor and consequential amendment to the International Travel Regulations, including to correct errors. An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument. An explanatory memorandum has been published alongside this instrument at www.legislation.gov.uk.

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
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