UK Offence Report

Penalties

regulation 34(1) of The Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1991

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

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 level 5 on the standard scale or, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 34(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 1991.
  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
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (1991-10-29); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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 Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1993
Revoked on
1 April 1993
Made
8 October 1991
In force from
29 October 1991
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 consolidate with amendments the Dairy Produce Quotas Regula tions 1989 as amended. The Regulations implement in the United Kingdom— a article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68, b Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84, and c Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1546/88, which are referred to as “the Community legislation” in the Regulations (regulation 2 and Schedules 1, 2 and 3). Under the Community legislation, a levy is chargeable on dairy produce sold by direct sale by a producer or delivered by him wholesale to a dairy business, unless the sales or deliveries are within a reference quantity described in that legislation. The Community legislation establishes the system of what are commonly called “milk quotas” and in these Regulations the term “quota” is used to refer to the reference quantities described in the Community legislation. The principal change introduced by these Regulations is provision for the award of quota to producers making sales of dairy produce other than milk, butter, cream or cheese (for example, yogurt and ice cream), for which quota has not previously been established (regulation 24 and Schedule 9). This provision gives effect to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 306/91 (OJ No. L37, 9.2.91, p. 4) amending the definition of “other milk products” in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84. Applications from producers for awards of quota were invited before the coming into force of these Regulations and the provision establishes 11th November 1991 as the date by which applications must be made. Criteria for entitlement to quota are set out in Schedule 9. Awards will be made of “primary quota” and “secondary quota”; the former will be granted to established producers and the latter to producers who can show that by 1st March 1991 they were committed to developing their production. Secondary quota awards will be based on determinations made by the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunals. Apart from minor and drafting amendments, the following changes have also been made by these Regulations: a provisions concerning inter alia recent awards of quota, which are now spent, have been omitted; b more detailed provision has been made concerning the adjustment of purchaser quotas following changes in deliveries made by producers (regulation 7) and consequential amendments have been made to the requirements for registering wholesale quota (regulation 28); c the date for notifying temporary transfers of quota has been omitted (regulation 17); d interest is made payable on amounts of levy not paid to the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce on the due date (regulation 23); e the level of fine applicable under the Regulations is linked to the standard scale (regulation 34); f provision is made for the terms of awards, where the apportionment of quota is determined by arbitration, to be notified to the Minister (Schedules 4, 5 and 6); g the provisions concerning the conversion of direct sales quota into wholesale quota and vice versa are simplied (Schedule 7); h the provisions concerning the calculation of liability for levy are amended so as to preclude direct sellers who do not submit their sales declarations by the due date from benefiting from unused quota of other producers (Schedule 8); i provision is made for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunals for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland (Schedule 10).

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