UK Offence Report

Amendment of the principal regulations

regulation 8 of The Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations 1991

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

8 After regulation

6 there shall be inserted the following regulation— 6A If any person—

a fails to provide to an inspector or

a certifying officer the information specified in Article 8a(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 890/78, or

b intentionally obstructs an inspector or

a certifying officer when seeking such information, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

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: intentionally.

What would breach regulation 8?

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 Hops Certification (Amendment) Regulations 1991.
  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
£400
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 3 value when the instrument came into force (1991-11-05); 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
Status not determined
Made
1 October 1991
In force from
5 November 1991
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 amend the Hops Certification Regulations 1979 (“the principal Regulations”) following amendment of the applicable European Community provisions (regulation 3). They apply throughout the United Kingdom and come into force on 5th November 1991. The Regulations amend the Community designation of hop cones (regulations 4(a) and 5(a)) and also make the following amendments of substance:— a the arrangements with regard to the issue of control attestations for hop cones which are imported from third countries unaccompanied by an attestation of equivalence will apply only for hop cones imported on or before 30th April 1992; hop cones so imported must be accompanied by a declaration as required by Article 4(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3076/78 (OJ No L 367, 28.12.78, p.17) as amended (regulations 4(a) and 5(a)); b inspectors may also be appointed for the verification of the minimum marketing requirements for hops and hop products imported from third countries and an inspector may take with him such other persons as he considers necessary (regulation 6(a) and (c)); c failure to provide the information as required by Article 8a(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 890/78 (OJ No L 117, 29.4.78, p.43) or obstruction of an inspector or certifying officer seeking such information is an offence (regulations 8); d the term “certificate” in regulation 9 of the principal Regulations (which creates offences of removing, falsifying, etc marks or certificates and making or using false entries in records) has been extended to include an attestation of equivalence or a control attestation (regulation 11); and e the maximum penalty for certain offences has been increased (regulations 4(b), 5(b), 10 and 11(b)).

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