UK Offence Report

Re-dispatch or destruction of illegal imports

regulation 6(8) of The Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) (Wales) Regulations 2003

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

8 Any person who breaches the terms of

a notice served under paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding three months.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach regulation 6(8)?

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 breaches the terms of a notice served under paragraph (1).
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) (Wales) Regulations 2003.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2003-11-14); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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
12 November 2003
In force from
14 November 2003
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 revoke and re-enact with changes the Food (Peanuts from Egypt) (Emergency Control) (England and Wales) Order 2000 in so far as it applies in relation to Wales. These Regulations implement Commission Decision 2000/49/EC repealing Decision 1999/356/EC and imposing special conditions on the import of peanuts and certain products derived from peanuts originating in or consigned from Egypt (OJ No. L19, 25.1.2000, p.46) as amended by Commission Decision 2003/580/EC (OJ No. L197, 5.8.03, p.31). The categories of products which are subject to those conditions are specified in Article 1.1 of Commission Decision 2002/49/EC as so amended. The Regulations — a prohibit the importation of “controlled Egyptian peanuts” (defined in regulation 2(1)), except where they are accompanied by an Egyptian Government health certificate and the results of official sampling and analysis, the importation takes place only through a specified point of entry and the consignment is identified with a code corresponding with that specified on the health certificate and on the accompanying report containing the sampling and analysis results (regulation 3); b provide for their enforcement (regulation 4); c apply with modifications certain provisions of the Food Safety Act for the purposes of the Regulations and provide for sampling and analysis (regulation 5); and d provide for the re-dispatch or destruction of illegal imports of controlled Egyptian peanuts (regulation 6). The principal changes effected by these Regulations are that — a the previous requirement that each consignment of controlled Egyptian peanuts be subjected to sampling and analysis in order to ensure compliance with Commission Decision 2002/49/EC is modified by providing that — i only approximately 20% of such consignments selected at random should be so subjected, ii consignments so subjected must be detained for that purpose, iii the period of detention should not exceed 15 working days, and iv an authorised officer of the relevant enforcement authority must issue a notice in writing stating that sampling has taken place and the results of the analysis of the sample; and b an authorised officer of the relevant enforcement authority is empowered (subject to a right of appeal to a magistrates' court) to issue a notice ordering the re-dispatch of illegal imports of controlled Egyptian peanuts. The CN codes referred to in the definition of “Egyptian peanuts” in regulation 2(1) are the code numbers of the combined nomenclature established by Council Regulation 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the customs tariff (OJ No. L256, 7.9.87, p.1). No regulatory appraisal has been prepared in relation to these Regulations.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

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 0.92.

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