UK Offence Report

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if— a without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— i…

article 6(1) of The Plant Health (Phytophthora kernovii Management Zone) (England) Order 2004

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if—

a without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him—

i he moves susceptible material in contravention of article 3;

ii he uses

a footpath that has been closed under article 4(1) unless that use is in accordance with article 4(3); or

iii he removes, unless directed by an inspector to do so, or defaces or otherwise interferes with

a notice displayed under article 4(2); or

b he intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if— a without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— i he moves susceptible material in contravention of article 3; ii he uses a footpath that has been closed under article 4(1) unless that use is in accordance with article 4(3); or iii he removes, unless directed by an inspect

What would breach article 6(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Plant Health (Phytophthora kernovii Management Zone) (England) Order 2004.
  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
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2004-12-21); 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 Plant Health (Phytophthora kernovii Management Zone) (England) (Revocation) Order 2014
Revoked on
1 December 2014
Made
20 December 2004
In force from
21 December 2004
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, which extends to England and Wales but applies to England only, comes into force on 21st December 2004. The Order gives plant health inspectors additional powers to those conferred on them by the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1320) and by the Plant Health (Forestry) (Great Britain) Order (S.I. 1993/1283) for the purpose of containing within and eradicating from an area within Cornwall (the “management zone”, as defined in article 2 and Schedule 2) the organism currently known as Phytophthora kernovii, a plant pest which is not normally present in Great Britain. The movement of susceptible material (defined in article 2 and Schedule 1) from within the zone to outside the zone is prohibited without the written authority of an inspector (article 3). Inspectors may, for the purpose of preventing the spread of Phytophthora kernovii, close footpaths within the zone (article 4). Inspectors are provided with a power to enter premises for the purpose of inspecting and seizing any susceptible material that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting is being or has been moved in contravention of article 3. An inspector may only exercise the power to enter into a building used wholly or mainly as a dwelling if he has been granted a warrant by a justice of the peace (article 5). A person who, without reasonable excuse, moves susceptible material in contravention of article 3, uses a footpath that has been closed under article 4, removes or otherwise interferes with a notice of closure displayed under article 4 or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his powers under the Order commits an offence (article 6). The offences carry liability on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (£5,000). Copies of plans showing the extent of the management zone have been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. No regulatory impact assessment has been prepared.

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