UK Offence Report

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

article 5(1) of The Dutch Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2005

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

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

a he contravenes or fails to comply with

a requirement of article 3; or

b he intentionally obstructs an inspector or any person authorised by an inspector in exercise of his powers under article 4.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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, without reasonable excuse, proof of which shall lie on him— a he contravenes or fails to comply with a requirement of article 3; or b he intentionally obstructs an inspector or any person authorised by an inspector in exercise of his powers under article 4.

What would breach article 5(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 Dutch Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2005.
  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 (2005-03-07); 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
9 February 2005
In force from
7 March 2005
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, which comes into force on 7th March 2005, places certain notification requirements upon persons importing potatoes from the Netherlands which have been grown during 2004 or later. Article 3 requires any person importing Dutch potatoes, grown during 2004 or later, into England in the course of business to give at least two days' notice in writing to a Plant Health inspector of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, providing specified details as to, among other things, when and where the potatoes are to be introduced into England (article 3(1)). It also requires persons who imported Dutch seed potatoes into England after 1st September 2004 but before the coming into force of this Order to provide to an inspector, so far as is reasonably practicable, specified information of a similar nature no later than 21st March 2005 (article 3(2)). Article 4 provides inspectors with powers, for the purpose of checking compliance with this Order or the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 (“the principal Order”), to require the movement of potatoes to any premises or to prohibit the movement, treatment or destruction of potatoes or any container or package. For the purposes of checking compliance with this Order, inspectors also have a power to enter premises in order to carry out examinations or inspections of certain items found there. These provisions are without prejudice to the circumstances in which an inspector may by virtue of the principal Order exercise the powers conferred by that Order. Article 5 provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he contravenes or fails to comply with a requirement of article 3 or he intentionally obstructs an inspector or any person authorised by an inspector in exercise of his powers under article 4. No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared for this Order.

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