UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 10(1) of The Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas (Re-assessment of Eligibility) Regulations 1996

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

1 Any person who in connection with these Regulations 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.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 (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: recklessly.

What would breach regulation 10(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 Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas (Re-assessment of Eligibility) Regulations 1996.
  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 (1996-02-05); 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
10 January 1996
In force from
5 February 1996
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, make the legislative provisions considered necessary to give effect to the judgment of the High Court of Justice in the case called R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales ex parte the National Union of Farmers and Others (action numbers CO/706/95 and CO/834/95). Judgment was delivered on 22nd June 1995. Following that judgment, the High Court granted a declaration that the conditions set out in Part V of Schedule 2 to the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/1626, as amended by S.I. 1993/3036 and S.I. 1994/2894) were unlawful. Regulation 13A(2) of S.I. 1993/1626 stated that a person falling within category 3, group (c), of the national quota reserve for 1993, as set out in Part I of Schedule 2 to that instrument (generally described as a “developer”), was eligible to be awarded quota from that national quota reserve (as defined by regulation 2(1) of S.I. 1993/1626). Regulation 13A(15) of S.I. 1993/1626 provided that a person fell within category 3, group (c), only if the conditions specified in Part V of Schedule 2 to that instrument were satisfied in his case. Those conditions stipulated that the producer had to provide some sort of written document showing an investment plan committing the producer to acquiring additional sheep or as the case may be suckler cows. The document had to have been drawn up before 1st January 1993 and authenticated at the time it was prepared by a professional adviser. S.I. 1993/1626 (applying throughout the United Kingdom) made provision for the implementation in part of Articles 5a and 5b of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3013/89, Articles 4d to 4h of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 805/68, Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3567/92 and Articles 22 to 45 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3886/92. Articles 5a and 5b of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3013/89 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3567/92 establish a system of quotas for sheep annual premium. Articles 4d to 4h of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 805/68 and Articles 22 to 45 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3886/92 establish a system of quotas for suckler cow premium. These Regulations— establish and describe a special quota reserve, and specify how it is to be funded (regulation 3); establish who is eligible for an award of quota from the special quota reserve, lay down conditions for making an application for such an award and specify when such an award is to become effective (regulation 4); specify the amounts of quota that will be awarded to successful applicants from the special quota reserve and state how those awards will be calculated (regulation 5); specify a procedure to be followed where there is insufficient quota within a division of the special quota reserve to fund the awards referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph (regulation 6); lay down the rules governing quota surpluses in the special quota reserve (regulation 7); indicate the rules determining the location of an applicant’s holding for the purposes of these Regulations (regulation 8); give officials certain powers in connection with the verification of applications for awards of quota from the special quota reserve (regulation 9); create offences (together with associated penalties) in relation to, first, the making of applications for awards of quota from the special quota reserve and, second, the obstruction of officials in the exercise of the powers referred to in sub-paragraph (g) of this paragraph (regulation 10); and revoke regulation 13A(15) of and Part V of Schedule 2 to S.I. 1993/1626 (regulation 11). No compliance cost assessment has been prepared in respect of these Regulations.

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