UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

paragraph 1(1) of SCHEDULE 5 of The Energy Information (Tumble Driers) Regulations 1996

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 It shall be an offence to contravene— regulation 4 (suppliers' duties in respect of labels); regulation 5 (suppliers' duties in respect of information notices); regulation 8 (suppliers' duties in respect of technical documentation); regulation 9 (dealers' duty in respect of displayed appliances); regulation 10 (dealers' duty in respect of information notices); regulation 12 (printed communications); regulation 13 (misleading information); paragraph

5 of this Schedule (obstruction of authorised officers); paragraph 11(8) of this Schedule (prohibition of purported search and seizure by unauthorised person); or paragraph 15(1) of this Schedule (restrictions on disclosure of information).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

tions it shall be a defence for that person to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. 3 Where in any proceedings (which in Scotland include the trial diet) against any person for such an offence the defence provided for by sub-paragraph (2) involves an allegation that the commission of the offence was due— a to

What would breach paragraph 1(1) of SCHEDULE 5?

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 Energy Information (Tumble Driers) Regulations 1996.
  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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown 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 (1996-04-01); 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 Enterprise Act 2002 (Consequential and Supplemental Provisions) Order 2003
Revoked on
20 June 2003
Made
5 March 1996
In force from
1 April 1996
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 implement Council Directive 92/75/EEC and Commission Directive 95/13/EC on energy labelling of electric tumble driers described in regulation 3. Suppliers, as defined in regulation 2, must supply labels and tables of information (called information notices) with information about the energy consumption of those appliances (regulations 4 and 5). Suppliers are deemed to consent to the information in labels and information notices being published (regulation 6). They are responsible for the accuracy of the information (regulation 7) and are required to establish technical documentation to enable it to be assessed (regulation 8). Dealers, as defined in regulation 2, must attach the label to an appliance displayed to end-users or, where the appliance is not displayed, make the information notice available to potential purchasers before a sale is concluded (regulations 9 and 10). Neither requirement applies in distance-sales cases (regulation 11). Regulation 12 requires similar information to be given where sales are by means of printed communications such as mail order catalogues. Regulation 13 stops misleading information about energy consumption of the appliances being displayed. Regulation 14 and Schedule 5 create criminal offences and contain other provisions on enforcement. Regulation 15 contains transitional provisions. A Compliance Cost Assessment, estimating the financial impact of the Regulations on suppliers, dealers and wholesalers of household washing machines and tumble driers covered by the scheme, can be obtained from: Environmental and Energy Management Directorate, Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB.

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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