UK Offence Report

False statements

regulation 11 of The Apple Orchard Grubbing Up 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

11 Any person who, for the purpose of obtaining the payment of

a premium to himself or to any other person, knowingly or recklessly makes

a statement which is false in

a material respect shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to

a fine not exceeding level

5 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
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 (for the purpose of obtaining, knowingly, knowingly or recklessly, recklessly).

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: knowingly, recklessly, for the purpose of obtaining, knowingly or recklessly.

What would breach regulation 11?

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 Apple Orchard Grubbing Up 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
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ 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 (1991-02-05); 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
Status not determined
Made
8 January 1991
In force from
5 February 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 lay down the measures necessary to supervise and enforce in Great Britain the provisions of Council regulations (EEC) No 1200/90 on the improvement of the Community production of apples and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2604/90, which contains detailed rules for the applications of the Council Regulation. The Council Regulation and the Commission Regulation provide for the payment of a premium to apple producers who grub up their orchards, and penalize, during the fifteen years following grubbing up, the planting of apple trees by the recipient of the premium on any part of his holding and by subsequent occupiers on the areas grubbed up. The premium is not available to producers of cider apples. The present Regulations identify the Ministers responsible for receiving applications for premium (regulation 3), determine how orchard areas should be calculated (regulation 4), confer powers of entry and inspection on officers authorised by the Ministers (regulations 5 and 6), require that subsequent occupiers be notified of the penalty for planting apple trees (regulation 8) and provide, in conformity with Article 6(3) of the Commission Regulation, for recovery of premium from the recipient where there has been a breach of the rules of the scheme (regulation 9) and for payment of a fixed penalty for planting apple trees (regulation 10). Regulation 11 creates an offence of making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining premium (punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale— at present £2,000), regulation 12 creates offences of obstructing an authorised officer and failing to produce relevant documents (both punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale— at present £400) and regulation 13 creates an offence of failing to notify a subsequent occupier of the penalty for planting apple trees (punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale).

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