UK Offence Report

2 It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 2 on thestandard scale,…

regulation 13(2) of The Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 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

2 It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by

a fine not exceeding level

2 on thestandard scale, to—

a fail to comply with regulation 8(2);

b fail to comply with regulation 9(1);

c fail to comply with

a notice served under regulation 9(2);

d fail to report an adverse reaction or the failure of

a microchip in accordance with regulation 10(1);

e fail to comply with

a notice served under regulation 12(a);

f obstruct an authorised person exercising

a power under regulation 12(b) or 12(c).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 authorised person
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
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 authorised 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; qualified by absence of consent (an element).

What would breach regulation 13(2)?

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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£2,500
Standard scale
Level 4
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
3 December 2015
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 provide for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. Regulation 3 imposes a duty on every keeper of a dog to have their dog microchipped and to record information on a database. In accordance with the definition of a keeper in these Regulations, a breeder is considered the first keeper of a puppy if the breeder owns the bitch that gave birth to the puppy. Accordingly the breeder is under a duty to have such a puppy microchipped in accordance with regulation 3. Regulation 4 sets out requirements for the microchips to be used and regulation 5 sets out the information to be recorded on a database. Regulation 6 sets out the conditions to be met by database operators. Regulation 7 gives the Welsh Ministers the power to request information from databases. It also, in circumstances where database operators are failing to meet the requirements in regulation 6, gives the Welsh Ministers the power to serve a notice on database operators requiring them to cease holding themselves out as meeting the requirements of the Regulations. The notice may also require them to provide an electronic copy of the data recorded in accordance with these Regulations to the Welsh Ministers or to another database operator. Regulation 8 requires a new keeper to update the information on the database on the transfer of keepership and prevents a dog from being transferred to a new keeper until it has been microchipped. A new keeper who fails to update a database with the relevant details results in the dog not being properly microchipped in accordance with regulation 3 and the new keeper being subject to enforcement action. Regulation 9 sets training standards for people who implant microchips. Regulation 10 provides for reporting of adverse reactions to, and migration of, microchips and reporting of microchip failures. Regulation 11 provides for the appointment of authorised persons to exercise powers under these Regulations. Regulation 12 gives authorised persons the power to serve a notice on a keeper to microchip their dog, to microchip a dog and recover the cost of doing so from the keeper and to take possession of a dog for the purpose of microchipping it. Regulation 13 contains offences. Regulation 14 provides for appeals to the First-tier tribunal against various notices. Regulation 15 provides for offences committed by bodies corporate, partnerships and unincorporated associations. Regulation 16 makes provision for consequential amendments. A draft of these Regulations was notified on 16 June 2015 to the European Commission in accordance with the Technical Standards Directive (Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC). The Welsh Ministers’ Code of Practice on the carrying out of Regulatory Impact Assessments was considered in relation to these Regulations. As a result, a Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with these Regulations. A copy can be obtained from the Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer, the Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ.

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 0.90.

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