UK Offence Report

IMPOSITION AND RECOVERY OF PENALTIES AND LOSSES 81 1 a If any registered producer contravenes the provisions…

SCHEDULE of The British Wool Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order 1950

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

IMPOSITION AND RECOVERY OF PENALTIES AND LOSSES 81 1 a If any registered producer contravenes the provisions of paragraph 71 of this Scheme, or of any prescription of the Board thereunder, then the Disciplinary Committee hereinafter described shall impose upon him and the Board shall recover from him such monetary penalty (not exceeding one hundred pounds plus half the price of any wool sold in contravention of the said provisions) as that Committee think just. b If any registered producer fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any demand made by the Board in pursuance of paragraph 77 of this Scheme, or if he knowingly makes any false statement in reply thereto, or if he obstructs or interferes with any person duly authorised by the Board under paragraph 78 of this Scheme, the said disciplinary committee shall impose upon such producer and the Board shall recover from him such monetary penalty (not exceeding one hundred pounds) as that Committee think just. c No such penalty shall be imposed in respect of such a contravention as aforesaid which constitutes an offence under any Act other than the Act of 1931.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 registered producer
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 (knowingly).

“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: knowingly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised); absence of consent (an element).

The defence, as drafted

at Committee think just. b If any registered producer fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any demand made by the Board in pursuance of paragraph 77 of this Scheme, or if he knowingly makes any false statement in reply thereto, or if he obstructs or interferes with any person duly authorised by the Board under paragraph 78 of this Sc

What would breach SCHEDULE?

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 British Wool Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order 1950.
  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
£100
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
2 August 1950
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.

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 0.88.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “is an offence”; the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.88 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