This is confirmed in the following link;
There has also been published on the internet a paper by the Law Commission;
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp195_Criminal_Liability_responses.pdf
One of the opening statements that spring to mind is that there should be a clear “distinction between “truly criminal” and “so-called regulatory offences””.
This paper is on the large side so I’ll pick out the relevant bits as they appertain to our particular profession.
The RSPCA make the following comments;
1.3 The RSPCA also consider that the power to impose a system of civil sanctions already enacted in the Regulatory Enforcement Sanctions Act 2008 and introduced in the Environmental Sanctions Order 2010 should not be extended beyond environmental offences (which was the intended ambit of these pieces of legislation) onto the AWA.
So if this is correct then the original intention of the RESA was for environmental issues. It would seem some government departments and agencies have seen an opportunity and gone for it.
1.31 Civil penalty proceedings differ from criminal prosecutions in that proceedings for a declaration of contravention and civil penalty orders are treated as civil proceedings and the civil rules of evidence and procedure apply. The standard of proof is proof on the balance of probabilities.
The consultation paper from the DSA it clearly stated that the standard of proof would be that of a criminal case “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt” seems that’s not the case.