UK Offence Report

Information

regulation 4(2) of The Specified Risk Material (Inspection Charges) Regulations 1999

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 Any person who–

a in purported compliance with paragraph (1) above knowingly or recklessly furnishes information which is false or misleading in

a material particular; or

b without reasonable excuse fails to comply within

a reasonable time with

a demand made under paragraph (1) above, shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 (knowingly, knowingly or recklessly, recklessly).

“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: knowingly, recklessly, knowingly or recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

which is false or misleading in a material particular; or b without reasonable excuse fails to comply within a reasonable time with a demand made under paragraph (1) above, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Specified Risk Material (Inspection Charges) Regulations 1999.
  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 (1999-03-29); 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
3 March 1999
In force from
29 March 1999
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 enable the Minister to levy a charge on the occupiers of slaughterhouses and cutting premises at which specified risk material (“SRM”) is removed from the carcases of cattle, sheep and goats (as required by the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997, S.I. 1997/2965) in respect of the cost incurred by the Minister in undertaking the inspections and controls permitted by regulations 10(9) and 15(4) of those Regulations (“the SRM inspections”). These Regulations provide that the Minister must notify the occupier of each place in which SRM inspections have taken place in any accounting period of the charge for that inspection as soon as practicable after the end of the accounting period. Where such a notification has been made that occupier and the owner of the establishment in respect of which the charge arose will be jointly and severally liable for the charge (regulation 3). These Regulations provide that the Minister may require any person to provide him with such information as he may reasonably require to calculate the SRM charge, or to verify information provided for that purpose. A person who knowingly or recklessly provides information which is false or misleading is guilty of an offence (regulation 4). These Regulations amend the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 to provide that the Minister may withdraw the inspections and controls provided for in regulation 10(9) of those Regulations and may suspend the authorisation of a plant authorised pursuant to regulation 15(7) thereof where the person liable to pay the SRM charge under these Regulations fails to do so, despite judgment for the sum owed having been entered against him (appropriate modifications are made insofar as these Regulations apply to Scotland). The amendments to the Specified Risk Material Regulations also prohibit the sale for human consumption of the carcase of a ruminant animal which has not been inspected and marked in accordance with regulation 10(9) of those Regulations and of the carcases of certain sheep and goats which have not been inspected in accordance with regulation 15(4) thereof (regulation 5). The Schedule to these Regulations specifies how the SRM charge is to be calculated, and provides that the Minister shall determine the hourly rates used in the calculation of that charge following consultation with the relevant occupier. A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared and placed in the library of each House of Parliament. Copies can be obtained from the Meat Hygiene Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ergon House, Room 534, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.

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 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”; the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
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