False statements
regulation 10 of The Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1992
- Revoked
- Requires proof of a state of mind
- Summary only
- Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairs
The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.
What the provision says
10 If any person for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person
a compensatory allowance under these Regulations knowingly or recklessly makes
a false statement, he shall be 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 10?
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.
- Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1992.
- Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
- 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
- Unlimited
- Standard scale
- Level 5
- Maximum prison (summary)
- Not determined
level 5 is unlimited in England and Wales for offences committed on or after 12 March 2015 (LASPO 2012 s.85, S.I. 2015/664).
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.
-
Animal cruelty: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2017
Covers cruelty to and neglect of animals, and the associated disqualification and deprivation orders.
-
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
-
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
-
General guideline: overarching principles
All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
-
Totality: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.
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 Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1993
- Revoked on
- 15 November 1993
- Made
- 17 February 1992
- In force from
- Not determined
- 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 Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1984, as amended. The Regulations comply with Council Directive 75/268/EEC (OJ No. L128, 19.5.75, p.1) on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas, and with articles 17 to 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2328/91 (OJ No.L218, 6.8.91, p.1) on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures. They extend to Great Britain. The Regulations continue to provide for the payment of an annual compensatory allowance for cattle and sheep which are maintained by the occupier of “eligible land”. “Eligible land” continues to be defined as land located in a less-favoured farming area which is shown on designated maps and which is “disadvantaged” or “severely disadvantaged”; the maps are available for inspection during normal office hours at the addresses specified in the definition of “designated maps” (regulation 2(1)). The rates of payment of the allowance remain the same per animal as under the superseded Regulations, although the total amounts payable per hectare of land are increased (regulation 3). Apart from minor and drafting amendments, the following changes are also made by these Regulations— a a definition of overgrazing is introduced (regulation 2(1)); b the provisions governing the eligibility of cattle and sheep for the payment of a compensatory allowance are made more consistent with one another and parts which referred to brucellosis eradication are omitted (regulations 4 and 5); c references to the stocking limits for livestock contained in Council Regulation (EEC) 2328/91 are introduced (regulations 4 and 5); d the powers of entry are enlarged (regulation 7) and the level of fine applicable in relation to offences under the Regulations is linked to the standard scale (regulation 10); e a transitional provision in relation to the calculation of allowances for 1992 is introduced to prevent double payment (regulation 11).
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 0.72.
- Basis
- the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
- Confidence
- 0.72 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
- This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
- The Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1992 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- Agriculture, plant health, food production and rural affairsOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 1992