UK Offence Report

Miscellaneous offences

regulation 9 of The Ozone-Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2009 (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

9 A person is guilty of an offence if the person—

a intentionally prevents another person from—

i appearing before an authorised person under regulation 8(2)(d); or

ii answering any questions to which an authorised person may by virtue of that regulation require an answer;

b intentionally obstructs an authorised person in the exercise or performance of the powers of that authorised person;

c furnishes to an authorised person any information which the person knows to be false or misleading;

d fails to produce

a record when required to do so by an authorised person; or

e pretends to be an authorised person.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 9?

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 Ozone-Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2009.
  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
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
4 February 2009
In force from
9 March 2009
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 revoke and replace, with amendments, the Ozone Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/1510), as amended by the Ozone Depleting Substances (Qualifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/97). The main changes are to extend the range of bodies responsible for enforcing the Regulations to include local authorities and port health authorities, and to amend the list of qualifications contained in Schedule 1. These Regulations, which extend to England and Wales and Scotland, continue to give effect to the provisions in Articles 16.5 and 17.1, first paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ No L 244, 29.9.00, p 1). These Regulations relate to minimum qualifications for those working on the recovery, recycling, reclamation or destruction of controlled substances and the prevention and minimising of leakages of controlled substances. The terms “controlled substances”, “recovery”, “recycling” and “reclamation” are defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000. Under regulation 5, it is an offence for a person to carry out relevant work involving controlled substances or work with methyl bromide unless that person is competent to do so. The terms “competent” and “relevant work” are defined in regulations 3 and 4 respectively. The term “work with methyl bromide” is defined in regulation 2. Details of the qualifications which a person needs in order to carry out certain types of relevant work are contained in the Table in Schedule 1. Regulation 5 also contains provisions making it an offence for an employer to employ a person to carry out relevant work or work with methyl bromide unless that person is competent to do so. Provisions about training are contained in regulation 6. Regulations 7 and 8 deal with the enforcement of these Regulations by authorised persons. Regulations 9 to 11 contain provisions relating to offences and penalties, and regulation 12 contains revocations. A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect of the Ozone Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2006 on the costs of business was prepared at the time those Regulations were made and is still considered to be accurate. No impact assessment has been produced for this instrument as no new impact on the costs of business is foreseen. Copies of the 2006 assessment can be obtained from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Atmospheric Quality and Industrial Pollution, Area 3F Ergon House c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR. A copy of that assessment has been placed in the library of each House of Parliament.

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