UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 5 of The Animal Feed (Basic Safety Standards) (Wales) 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

5 Any person who contravenes regulation

3 or regulation

4 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine or to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding

3 months, or both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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) (Wales) Regulations 2018, 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
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months

'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
15 January 2018
In force from
6 February 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 transpose in Wales, in relation to animal feed, Article 21 of Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom 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 No L 13, 17.1.14, p. 1). Regulation 3 sets out that no person may intentionally add a radioactive substance in the production of animal feed. Regulation 4 sets out that no person may import or export any animal feed to which a radioactive substance has been intentionally added during production. Regulation 5 provides that it is an offence to fail to comply with regulation 3 or 4, punishable on conviction in the magistrates’ court by a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both. Regulation 6 sets out that it is the duty of each feed authority to enforce these Regulations in its area. Regulation 7 amends Schedule 1 to the Animal Feed (Hygiene, Sampling etc. and Enforcement) (Wales) Regulations 2016 (“the 2016 Regulations”) (S.I. 2016/387 (W. 121)). The amendment designates these Regulations as “specified feed law” for the purposes of the 2016 Regulations so that, among other things, authorised officers may serve improvement notices for failure to comply with regulation 3 or 4 of these Regulations and a person aggrieved by a decision to serve an improvement notice may appeal to the magistrates’ court. The amendment also allows, if particular requirements are complied with, a court to impose a prohibition order/emergency prohibition order on a feed business operator for failure to comply with regulation 3 or 4, and allows authorised officers to enter non-dwellings to investigate non-compliance with regulation 3 or 4 and to inspect, take samples, and detain or seize products. The amendment also allows a person accused of failing to comply with regulation 3 or 4 to rely on a due diligence defence in specific circumstances. Regulation 8 amends Schedule 2 to the Official Feed and Food Controls (Wales) Regulations 2009 (“the 2009 Regulations”) (S.I. 2009/3376 (W. 298)). The amendment designates these Regulations as “relevant feed law” for the purposes of the 2009 Regulations. Among other things, the amendment allows feed authorities to share with other feed authorities any information received by them in the enforcement of these Regulations. The Welsh Ministers’ Code of Practice on the carrying out of Regulatory Impact Assessments was considered in relation to these Regulations. As a result, it was not considered necessary to carry out a regulatory impact assessment as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with these Regulations.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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