UK Offence Report

7 Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the payment to…

regulation 7 of The Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1982

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

7 Any person who knowingly or recklessly makes

a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the payment to himself or to any other person of

a premium 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 (for the purpose of obtaining, 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, for the purpose of obtaining, knowingly or recklessly.

What would breach regulation 7?

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 or recklessly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the payment to himself or to any other person of a premium.
  2. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1982.
  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
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.

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
24 November 1982
In force from
28 December 1982
Extent
E+W+S+NI

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.

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1357/80 introduced a scheme (“the scheme”) for the payment of premiums for maintaining suckler cows. Council Regulations (EEC) No. 1417/81 and No. 1198/82 subsequently amended the scheme, and Council Regulation (EEC) 1199/82 further provided for the granting of additional premiums for maintaining suckler cows in Northern Ireland (replacing Council Regulation (EEC) 1056/81). Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1244/82 (replacing Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1581/81) laid down detailed rules implementing the scheme (as amended) in respect of applications for premiums made during the 1982/83 marketing year and successive years. In addition to premiums payable directly under the scheme from Community funds Member States are authorised within specified limits to pay further premiums from national funds. During the 1982/83 marketing year this option is being exercised by the United Kingdom in the form of an additional national premium of 5 ECU per suckler cow. The present regulations make provision for those matters which are left to Member States by the scheme and which are necessary for its proper implementation in the United Kingdom. They appoint “the competent authority” responsible for administering the amended scheme in its latest form in the various parts of the United Kingdom (regulation 4), and impose an obligation on a producer (and his successor if he has given an undertaking to continue the scheme) to permit an authorised officer acting on behalf of the competent authority to inspect and count cattle kept by him and to inspect relevant documents (regulation 5). The regulations specify the circumstances in which premiums may be recovered and the persons from whom recovery may be made (regulation 6) and they also create offences relating to the making of false statements (which are punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £400) (regulation 7). For the purposes of regulations 6 and 7 “premium” is now defined to include both a premium payable under the principal Council Regulation or the additional Council Regulation and an additional premium payment of which is authorised by those regulations at the discretion of the Member State (regulation 3(1)). Corresponding regulations made in 1980 (the Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1980 (S.I. 1980/1239), as amended by S.I. 1980/1770 and 1980/1979) and 1981 (the Suckler Cow Premium Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1700)) remain in force and have effect in relation to applications for premiums under the schemes made during the 1980/81 and 1981/82 marketing years respectively.

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 0.72.

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