UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 4(2) of The Surplus Food Regulations 1995

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

2 If any person—

a intentionally obstructs an authorised officer acting in the exercise of

a power conferred by regulation

3 above; or

b fails without reasonable excuse to comply with

a requirement of an authorised officer pursuant to regulation 3(3)(b), (d) or (e) above or with

a requirement of an authorised officer under regulation 3(5) above, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 (intentionally).

“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: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

cise of a power conferred by regulation 3 above; or b fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer pursuant to regulation 3(3)(b), (d) or (e) above or with a requirement of an authorised officer under regulation 3(5) above, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not

What would breach regulation 4(2)?

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 Surplus Food Regulations 1995.
  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
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
26 January 1995
In force from
20 February 1995
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, which apply throughout the United Kingdom, come into force on 20th February 1995. They supplement provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3730/87 which lays down general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organizations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3149/92 (as amended) which lays down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community. The Regulations— a confer on authorised officers of an enforcement authority power to enter land or vehicles, to inspect premises and any surplus food found on them, to require the production of records or documents and the supply of information, to inspect and take copies of records and documents and to seize and retain records, documents and surplus food (regulation 3); b create offences of furnishing false information, selling surplus food and distributing surplus food to persons who are not eligible recipients as defined in the regulations (regulation 4); and c specify time limits for bringing prosecutions and provide a defence of due diligence (regulations 5 and 6). No compliance cost assessment has been prepared as these are enforcement regulations which do not impose an administrative burden on businesses.

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