UK Offence Report

Duplicate and replacement passports

regulation 6 of The Horse Passports Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 (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

6 Any person who knowingly provides information which is false or misleading for the purposes of obtaining

a duplicate or replacement passport is guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly.

What would breach regulation 6?

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 knowingly provides information which is false or misleading for the purposes of obtaining a duplicate or replacement passport.
  2. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Horse Passports Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010.
  3. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  4. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
19 February 2010
In force from
31 March 2010
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 enforce Commission Regulation (EC) No. 504/2008 in Northern Ireland. They provide for identification of horses, and replace the Horse Passports Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. Part 2 of the Regulations create offences for breach of provisions of the Commission Regulation. . Part 3 provides that the Regulations are enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, and gives powers to inspectors of that authority. Breach of the Regulations is an offence punishable— a On summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or b On conviction on indictment, to a fine.

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