UK Offence Report

False documentation

regulation 6 of The Bananas (Interim Measures) Regulations 1992

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 Any person who—

a ripens commercially any dollar bananas knowing that an entry in Part A of the consignment document relating thereto is false in

a material respect or being reckless as to its veracity in

a material respect; or

b knowingly or recklessly makes an entry in Part B of

a consignment document which is false in

a material respect; or

c produces for inspection by an authorised officer any consignment document, bill, account, record or other document, knowing it to be false in any material respect or being reckless as to its veracity in

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

a fine not exceeding level

5 on the standard scale and in Northern Ireland to

a fine not exceeding £2000.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 (knowing that, 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, knowing that, knowingly or recklessly.

What would breach regulation 6?

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 Bananas (Interim Measures) Regulations 1992.
  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
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (1993-01-01); 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 Bananas (Interim Measures) (Revocation) Regulations 1993
Revoked on
7 October 1993
Made
23 December 1992
In force from
1 January 1993
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 to the United Kingdom, come into force on 1st January 1993. The Regulations provide for controls on commercial banana ripening operations in order to verify compliance with import restrictions on bananas from the dollar area. The controls are introduced on an interim basis pending the adoption of a Community common organisation of the agricultural market in bananas. They give effect to the obligation in Protocol 5 to the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (signed in Lome on 15th December 1989) to ensure preferential market access for bananas from ACP states which are traditional suppliers. The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention has been specified as one of the Community Treaties by the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/758) under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 (1972 c. 68). The Regulations provide for: a the furnishing of information about ripening premises (regulation 3); b the completion, retention and production of certain documents by persons who carry out the commercial ripening of bananas (regulation 4); c inspection of ripening premises and documents relating to bananas (regulation 5).

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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction
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