UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 5 of The Common Agricultural Policy (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (revoked)

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

5 —The following regulation shall be substituted for regulation 8— Offences and penalties 8

1 If any person—

a fails to comply with

a request made under Article 5(1) of Regulation 4045/89 (which relates to the production of commercial documents and of any additional information requested);

b fails to comply with

a requirement issued under Article 5(2) of Regulation 4045/89 (which relates to the supply of extracts or copies of commercial documents);

c fails to comply with

a determination made under the third sub-paragraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation 4045/89 (which enables the place and time to be determined at which an undertaking shall, in certain circumstances, make available for inspection commercial documents required for scrutiny pursuant to Regulation 4045/89), as read with regulation 7(2)(c);

d intentionally obstructs an authorised officer (or

a person accompanying him and acting under his instructions) acting in the exercise of

a power conferred by regulation

5 or by virtue of regulation 7; or

e fails to comply with

a request made under regulation 6, he shall be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 (for the purpose of obtaining, intentionally, 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: intentionally.

What would breach regulation 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 Common Agricultural Policy (Protection of Community Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2001.
  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
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

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
21 September 2001
In force from
15 October 2001
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 come into force on 15th October 2001, amend the Common Agricultural Policy (Protection of Community Arrangements) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/314) (“the principal Regulations”). Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1258/1999 (OJ No. L160, 26.6.1999, p. 103) (on the financing of the common agricultural policy) requires Member States to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that transactions financed by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund are actually carried out and are executed correctly, to prevent and deal with irregularities and to recover sums lost as a result of irregularities and negligence. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4045/89 (OJ No. L388, 30.12.89, p. 18) provided for the scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the Fund (“the Guarantee Section”). It has been amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 3094/94 (OJ No. L328, 20.12.94, p. 1), in particular so as to extend the scope of scrutiny of commercial documents and also to exclude from its application measures covered by the integrated administration and control system established by Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92 (OJ No. L355, 5.12.92, p. 1), as amended, and otherwise involving direct payments to producers. As amended, the principal Regulations provide for implementation of these Community provisions in relation to Guarantee Section transactions subject to scrutiny. They also take account of changes in Community legislation specifying the commodities to which they must apply and, in implementation of Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728 (EC, Euratom) (OJ No. L293, 12.11.94, p. 9) on the system of the European Communities' own resources, make provision for the collection of own resources derived from agricultural export levies and other duties. The principal changes introduced by these Regulations— a provide definitions for “Communities' agricultural levy own resources” and “specified own resources levy payer” and amend the definitions of “regulated transaction”, “Regulation 4045/89”, “specified beneficiary”, “specified contributor”, “specified person” and “specified commodity” (regulation 2); b amend regulation 7 conferring on authorised officers and enforcement authorities certain powers in relation to scrutiny under Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 4045/89 (regulation 4); c amend regulation 8 to— i prescribe offences for failure to comply with determinations made or directions given under Article 5(3) of Regulation 4045/89; ii make amendments (consequential on the assimilation by the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/2795) (NI 15) of fines in Northern Ireland to those in Great Britain) to the penalties prescribed in respect of such offences; iii amend the provisions prescribing the offence relating to furnishing of false or misleading information so that it also relates to the making, signing, delivery and transmission of documents and the making of entries in a record or register, and the provisions prescribing a penalty for that offence on summary conviction, so that it also includes inprisonment for a period of up to 3 months (regulation 5); d amend regulation 10 so as to apply the due diligence defence in respect of failures to comply with requirements under Article 5(3) of Regulation 4045/89 (regulation 6); e revoke regulation 4 pursuant to the termination of the special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins, including the repeal of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3540/85 by Commission Regulation (EC) 658/96 (regulation 7). No regulatory impact 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