UK Offence Report

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a…

article 7(1) of The Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (revoked)

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

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him—

a he contravenes or fails to comply with Article 4; or

b he intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his powers given by or under Article 6(3)(b) or (4).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally).

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a he contravenes or fails to comply with Article 4; or b he intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his powers given by or under Article 6(3)(b) or (4).

What would breach article 7(1)?

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 Plant Health (Phytophthora ramorum) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002.
  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
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

in Northern Ireland a reference to a level is construed as referring to the standard scale as it currently stands (Fines and Penalties (NI) Order 1984 art.5(3)), not as it stood when the instrument was made.

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 August 2002
In force from
9 September 2002
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 Order.) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order implements measures to prevent the introduction and spread of the pest Phytophthora ramorum, a fungus which is not established in the United Kingdom. It regulates the importation and movement into and within Northern Ireland of plant material identified as susceptible to the pest, believed to cause Sudden Oak Death syndrome in certain species of oak in the USA, and harm to Rhododendron, Viburnum and other plants. This Order restricts the importation of a number of plant genera, including Rhododendron and Viburnum (“susceptible material”) directly from the USA by requiring that such imports be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate which confirms that the material originates from a location which is officially recognised in the USA as free from the pest (Article 3). This requirement is imposed in addition to the requirements of The Plant Health Order (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. 1993 No. 256) (see Article 4(1)(e) and Schedule 4, Part A, Section 1; Article 4(1)(f) and Schedule 5, Part B, Section 1; and Article 4(1)(g)) and applies whether the importer is acting in the course of a trade or business or not. Susceptible material which is imported after the coming into operation of this Order on 9th September 2002, but which is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued before 9th September 2002 is exempted from the import requirement of this Order. Commercial movements of susceptible material into Northern Ireland whether from elsewhere in the UK or European Community, or from any other country, must be notified to a Plant Health Inspector by the person occupying premises at which delivery of the material is taken (Article 4(2)). Commercial movements of susceptible material within Northern Ireland must be notified to a Plant Health Inspector by the person occupying premises from which the material is despatched (Article 4(3)). The notification requirements apply only to persons acting in the course of a trade or business (Article 5(2)). A Plant Health Inspector may dispense in writing with any or all of the requirements for notification where he obtains sufficient information about any susceptible material falling under this Order (Article 6(1)). A Plant Health Inspector acting under this Order may exercise powers to check compliance (by examining, sampling and marketing property and/or premises) conferred by Article (25)(a) and (b) of the principal Order (“Article 25 powers”) (Article 6(3)(a)), and may inspect documents, including documents and records held on computer, when exercising Article 25 powers (Article 6(3)(b) and (4)). Any Article 25 power exercised under this Order has the same effect as if exercised under the relevant Article of the principal Order so that once that power is exercised, the relevant consequential provisions of the principal Order, including provisions as to offences, take effect (Article 6(5)). Offences are created in respect of the contravention or failure to comply with the notification requirements of the Order (Article 7(1)(a)) and in respect of obstructing an inspector exercising his powers to require production of documents and records (Article 7(1)(b)). (Note also that breach of the provision prohibiting certain imports from the USA without the requisite phytosanitary certificate and official statement is a matter for prosecution by HM Customs & Excise, pursuant to section 50 of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979).

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