UK Offence Report

Obstruction

regulation 14 of The Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1990

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

14 Any person who–

a intentionally obstructs an authorised officer acting in the execution of these Regulations; or

b without reasonable cause fails to give to any such officer any assistance or information or to provide any facilities which that officer may reasonably require of him for the purposes of his functions under these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in Great Britain to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale or on such conviction in Northern Ireland 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally).

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally.

The defence, as drafted

against any person for an offence under these Regulations, it shall be a defence for that person to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

What would breach regulation 14?

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 Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1990.
  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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£400
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 3 value when the instrument came into force (1990-08-06); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean £1000.

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 Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1992
Revoked on
2 April 1992
Made
3 July 1990
In force from
6 August 1990
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which apply throughout the United Kingdom and come into force on 6th August 1990, provide for the enforcement of EEC Regulations (as specified in Schedules 1 and 2) concerned with the production and marketing of wine and related products. The Regulations, which revoke and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1987– a designate competent authorities for the purposes of enforcement (regulation 3); b define “medium dry” for the purposes of labelling and description (regulation 4); c exempt certain products from provisions relating to information required on labels (regulation 5); d permit the planting for certain purposes of vine varieties whose planting would otherwise be prohibited (regulation 6); e provide for powers of inspection and enforcement (regulation 7); f authorise controls on the movement of wine sector products (regulations 8 and 9); g relieve authorised officers of personal liability for acts done by them in execution of the Regulations (regulation 10); h confer on courts before which proceedings are brought powers in relation to the analysis of samples (regulation 11); and i prescribe offences and penalties (regulations 12, 13, 14 and 15). The Regulations differ from the Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1987 in that– a the term “medium dry” has been defined for the purposes of labelling and description of wine by reference to its residual sugar content in relation to its total acidity content (regulation 4); b powers of entry, inspection of materials and documents, taking stock counts, sampling and analysis have been conferred on authorised officers of designated enforcement authorities (regulation 7); c powers have been given to authorised officers to prohibit the movement of wine sector products where they have reason to believe that an offence triable summarily or on indictment is being committed and that there is a risk to public health or has been any fraudulent treatment of those products and to consent to the movement of such products in certain circumstances (regulations 8 and 9); d provision is made with respect to the personal liability of authorised officers and the analysis of samples in the course of proceedings; 18 e new offences have been created in relation to the unauthorised movement of controlled wine (regulation 13) and the obstruction of authorised officers (regulation 14); f the Schedules have been revised and brought up to date so as to include references to relevant Regulations of the European Economic Community which have been adopted since the Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1987 came into force and to delete references to Regulations which have been repealed or superseded or have become redundant. In Schedule 1 each Regulation is given the title which appears in the Official Journal except in cases where the title refers to a Regulation that has been repealed or superseded. In such a case the title given in Schedule 1 refers to the superseding Regulation and the title in the Official Journal is given in a footnote.

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 0.92.

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