UK Offence Report

Penalties

regulation 31(1) of The Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 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 Subject to paragraph (2), any person who– a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on him by or under these Regulations or the Community legislation, or b in connection with these Regulations or the Community legislation, makes a statement or uses a document which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement or uses a document which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £2,000 and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

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

The defence, as drafted

1 Subject to paragraph (2), any person who– a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on him by or under these Regulations or the Community legislation, or b in connection with these Regulations or the Community legislation, makes a statement or uses a document which he knows to be false in a material parti

What would breach regulation 31(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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1989.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown 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
Status not determined
Made
8 March 1989
In force from
31 March 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986, the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1988 and the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1989. The Regulations apply throughout the United Kingdom, with the minor exception of regulation 21 which applies only to Northern Ireland, and come into force on 31 March 1989. The main amendments are as follows– Minor changes have been made to certain of the definitions in order to update them (regulation 2). Article 12(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1546/88 gives Member States a discretion to permit certain producers to choose an alternative base year in respect of which to calculate the fat content of their milk for levy purposes. The Regulations specifically enable the Minister to implement a producer’s choice of an alternative base year (regulation 6). Any change of occupation of a holding must be notified to the Minister within 2 months on a form which is to be prescribed for the purpose. Certain changes of occupation of small areas of land in England and Wales are no longer exempt from the application of the transfer rules. Also those transfer rules no longer apply where a person occupied land under such an agreement and lawfully continued in occupation until a date one month after the termination of his interest in the land (regulation 9). Transfers which take place immediately before the end of a quota year cause problems as regards the calculation of levy liability unless they are promptly notified to the Minister, as otherwise it is impossible to assess how much unused quota is available for re-allocation amongst over-quota producers. In order to minimise these problems the Minister may set a date after the end of the quota year in question by which the person to whom quota is transferred must notify him of the transfer. Anyone who fails to notify the Minister by that date may only make use of the transferred quota to offset his levy liability in the following quota year, not the year in which the transfer actually took place. Such quota is nevertheless to be treated as being available for re-allocation by the Minister in the year in which the transfer took place (regulation 9(2)(a)). The provision which previously allowed a purchaser and producer to agree a change in the identification of that producer’s holding for the purpose of management of wholesale quotas by purchasers has not been re-enacted. The Minister has been given the power to make a temporary reallocation of quota, in certain circumstances, to producers to whom the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal or one of its local panels has made an award of quota, or to whom the Minister has allocated quota under Schedule 12 to the 1986 Regulations, where that award or allocation of quota has been entered incorrectly in the quota register maintained by the Minister (regulation 16). New arbitration procedures have been introduced which are similar to those which operate under the agricultural holdings legislation, and contain in particular new statutory time limits within which certain steps in the arbitration must be taken (Schedule 4, 5 and 6). Supplementary levy liability is calculated at purchaser level for wholesale producers and nationally for direct sellers, which allows the unused quota of under quota producers to be used to offset over-production by over quota producers. The Minister is given a power to instruct purchasers of the optimum amount to convert to keep the United Kingdom’s levy to a minimum (Schedule 7). The provisions in relation to calculation of levy liability have been replaced to take into account the fact that deliveries of milk against a purchaser’s quota must be adjusted having regard to any increase in the butterfat content before the process for calculating the liability for levy may commence (Schedule 8). Certain provisions which previously applied throughout the United Kingdom, and which enabled the Minister to make allocations of quota to producers in a number of different circumstances, have been deleted because they are no longer relevant. In relation to Northern Ireland only, however, provisions have been retained to enable the Minister to make any additional allocation of quota in cases of exceptional hardship and to certain small producers (Schedule 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