False statements
regulation 6 of Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977
- Status not determined
- Requires proof of a state of mind
- Summary only
- Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairs
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 If any person, for the purposes of obtaining for himself or any other person any grant under these regulations, knowingly or recklessly makes
a false statement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to
a fine not exceeding £400.
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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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, knowingly or recklessly, recklessly).
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, recklessly, knowingly or recklessly.
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.
- Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977.
- Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
- Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.
Penalty
- Mode of trial
- Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
- Maximum fine
- £400
- 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.
-
Animal cruelty: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2017
Covers cruelty to and neglect of animals, and the associated disqualification and deprivation orders.
-
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
-
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
-
General guideline: overarching principles
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
-
Totality: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.
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 December 1977
- In force from
- 16 December 1977
- 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 apply throughout the United Kingdom and supplement Regulation (EEC) No. 355/77 of the Council on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed. The Council Regulation empowers the Commission (subject, in specified circumstances, to the decision of the Council) to grant to projects aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund conditional upon financial contribution by the Member States on the territory of which the projects are to be carried out. Article 6.1 of the Council Regulation in the English edition of the Official Journal defines “project” as:— any project involving public, semi-public or private material investment relating wholly or in part to buildings and/or equipment for: a rationalizing or developing storage, market preparation, preservation, treatment or processing of agricultural products; b improving marketing channels; c better knowledge of the facts relating to prices and to their formation on the markets for agricultural products. To enable United Kingdom projects to receive aid which has been authorised under the Council Regulation, these regulations empower Minister to make grants towards approved expenditure for the purposes of those projects (regulation 3). Where the expenditure approved for Community aid has been approved for the purposes of any other grant out of United Kingdom public funds, only such grant is payable under these regulations as is necessary to enable the project to receive the Community aid. Otherwise the amount of grant under these regulations is restricted to a maximum of 8 per cent. of that expenditure (regulation 4). In specified circumstances, approval of expenditure may be revoked and grant may be recovered (regulation 5). A penalty is prescribed in respect of false statements made to obtain grant (regulation 6).
Read the full note and every offence in this instrument
What Parliament said
Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.
-
Agricultural Products Processing And Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977
Lords · 13 December 1977 · Lord STRABOLGI
rose to move, That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 10th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations, which will apply throughout the United Kingdom, are closely linked with a recently-adopted EEC regulation and it may help if I first say a few words about that. In February this year, the Council of…
-
Agricultural Products Processing And Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977
Lords · 13 December 1977
Moved, That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing, (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 10th November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
-
Marine Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1981
Lords · 17 December 1981 · Lord Sandys
My Lords, we have had a useful debate, and I should like to emphasise that the purpose of this scheme is to ensure that marine fish farmers should be able to qualify for FEOGA assistance under the interim aid scheme. We have broken some new ground in introducing this scheme, and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, that the House and indeed the industry as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to the…
-
Agricultural Products Processing And Marketing (Improvement Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1983
Lords · 14 April 1983 · Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I beg to move that the Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1983 be approved. These regulations are very short and make only one minor amendment to the principal regulations; namely the Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977 (SI No. 2112). They will extend for two years on an unchanged basis the existing…
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 0.72.
- Basis
- the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
- Confidence
- 0.72 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
- This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
- Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairsOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 1977