UK Offence Report

Penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Scheme or of determinations of the Board; the…

paragraph 34(1) of SCHEDULE 1 of The Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme (Consolidation) Approval Order 1989

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

1 If any person being

a registered producer under the Scheme—

a sells milk or any description or quantity thereof at

a price, or in

a manner, or to

a person, or on terms, other than those determined for the time being by the Board or by the Joint Committee as the case may be; or

b fails to furnish such information relating to the milk produced by him as may be required from time to time by the Board; or

c wilfully furnishes to the Board information which is false in any material particular; or

d obstructs or interferes with any person duly authorised by the Board in terms of section

33 in the performance of his duties thereunder; or

e withholds milk for the purposes of section 32(2)(a)(iii) (for sale to an exempt producer) and fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of section 32(10), the Disciplinary Committee hereinafter decribed shall impose upon such producer, and the Board shall recover from him, such monetary penalty not exceeding £1,000 as that Committee think just: Provided always that 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.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

“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: wilfully; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

on 32(2)(a)(iii) (for sale to an exempt producer) and fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of section 32(10), the Disciplinary Committee hereinafter decribed shall impose upon such producer, and the Board shall recover from him, such monetary penalty not exceeding £1,000 as that Committee think just: Provided

What would breach paragraph 34(1) of SCHEDULE 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 Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme (Consolidation) Approval Order 1989.
  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
Not determined
Maximum fine
£1,000
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
Status not determined
Made
28 September 1989
In force from
25 October 1989
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, which comes into force on 25th October 1989, approves a consolidated milk marketing scheme to replace the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme 1933, as amended. The consolidated scheme is set out in Schedule 1 to the Order. The various Orders and Regulations approving the 1933 Scheme and subsequent amendments thereto are revoked by Schedule 2 to this Order.

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 0.88.

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