UK Offence Report

Obstruction of authorised officers

regulation 25(1) of The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008

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 Any person who—

a intentionally obstructs an officer of an enforcement authority acting in pursuance of these Regulations;

b intentionally fails to comply with any requirement properly made of him by such an officer under regulation 23; or

c without reasonable cause fails to give such an officer any other assistance or information which he may reasonably require of him for the purpose of the performance of his functions under these Regulations, is guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 (intentionally).

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 25(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 Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008.
  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
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2008-05-26); 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
8 May 2008
In force from
26 May 2008
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 implement Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ No L376 27.12.2006, p 21) (“the Directive”). The Directive replaces Council Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ No L250 19.9.84, p 17) and codifies the amendments made to that directive. Council Directive 84/450/EEC was implemented by the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/915). Those Regulations are revoked by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277). Part 1 prohibits advertising which misleads traders. This Part also sets out the conditions under which comparative advertising (namely advertising which identifies a competitor or a competitor’s product) is permitted. In addition this Part requires code owners (namely traders and bodies responsible for codes of conduct or monitoring compliance with such codes) not to promote misleading advertising and comparative advertising which is not permitted. Part 2 provides for criminal offences and defences that apply where a trader engages in misleading advertising Part 3 places a duty to enforce the Regulations on the OFT, local weights and measures authorities and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland (“the enforcement authorities”). The enforcement authorities are given the power to take proceedings for an injunction to secure compliance with the Regulations. Part 4 gives the enforcement authorities powers to investigate whether there has been a breach of the Regulations including a power to make test purchases and powers to enter premises with or without a warrant. A transposition note and an impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs to business and the voluntary sector are available from the BERR website (www.berr.gov.uk). They are also annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the OPSI website (www.opsi.gov.uk). Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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