UK Offence Report

Offences and penalties

regulation 6 of The Dairy Produce Quotas (General Provisions) Regulations 2002

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 Any person who—

a intentionally obstructs an authorised officer acting in exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 5(1), (2) or (3) of these Regulations; or

b fails without reasonable excuse to comply with

a requirement of an authorised officer made pursuant to regulation 5(4) or (5) thereof, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

egulation 5(1), (2) or (3) of these Regulations; or b fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer made pursuant to regulation 5(4) or (5) thereof, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

What would breach regulation 6?

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 Dairy Produce Quotas (General Provisions) Regulations 2002.
  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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Food and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Regulations 2018
Revoked on
1 October 2018
Made
1 March 2002
In force from
31 March 2002
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, which come into force on 31st March 2002, contain provisions concerning dairy produce quotas which, for which separate territorial enactments extending to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively would not be apt. Such enactments containing the majority of provisions in relation to daily produce quotas are the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/457), the Dairy Produce Quotas (Wales) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/766 (W. 83)), the Dairy Produce Quotas (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (S.S.I. 2002/110), and the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (S.R. 2002/88). The Regulations provide for the meaning of the relevant competent authority in relation to producers, purchasers and other persons (regulation 3), maintain in existence the national reserve of milk quotas (regulation 4), specify the powers of authorised officers (regulation 5), provide offences of obstructing an authorised officer and of failing to comply with the requirements of any such authorised officer (regulation 6) and re-constitute, and set out the procedures of, the Dairy Produce Quota Tribunals (regulation 7 and Schedule). No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in respect of these Regulations.

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”
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