UK Offence Report

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

article 9(1) of The Disposal of Waste (Control of Beet Rhizomania Disease) Order 1988

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

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

a contravenes or fails to comply with

a provision of this Order; or

b contravenes or fails to comply with

a condition of an approval or

a licence granted under this Order; or

c intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his powers under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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, who without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of this Order; or b contravenes or fails to comply with a condition of an approval or a licence granted under this Order; or c intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exer

What would breach article 9(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 Disposal of Waste (Control of Beet Rhizomania Disease) Order 1988.
  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
£2,000
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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Disposal of Waste (Control of Beet Rhizomania Disease) (Revocation) Order 1998
Revoked on
7 October 1998
Made
18 January 1988
In force from
1 March 1988
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order which applies to Great Britain— a prohibits the depositing of waste obtained from the commercial processing (other than for retail sale) of certain imported root vegetables on land other than on land approved for that purpose, and imposes controls on the removal and transport of such waste (article 3); b provides for any person wishing to have land approved for the disposal of such waste to make application to the appropriate Minister, and for the appropriate Minister to grant his approval subject to conditions (if any) as are necessary to control the spread of Beet Rhizomania Disease (article 4); c enables plant health inspectors, by notice, to declare land adjoining, or in close proximity to approved land to be a safety zone and to prohibit the planting on such land or on approved land such plants as they may specify in the notice for the purpose of preventing the spread of Beet Rhizomania Disease (article 5); d imposes record-keeping requirements on persons in charge of processing premises, of vehicles used for the transport of waste or of approved land (article 6); e enables plant health inspectors to enter land or vehicles to ascertain whether the provisions of the Order are being or have been contravened (article 7); f provides for offences punishable by a maximum fine of £2,000 (article 9).

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