UK Offence Report

Records of decisions etc

paragraph 30(6) of SCHEDULE of The Valuation Tribunals (Consequential Modifications and Saving and Transitional Provisions) (England) Regulations 2009

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

6 If without reasonable excuse

a person having custody of the records intentionally obstructs

a person in exercising the right conferred by paragraph (5) the person having custody shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

6 If without reasonable excuse a person having custody of the records intentionally obstructs a person in exercising the right conferred by paragraph (5) the person having custody shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

What would breach paragraph 30(6) of SCHEDULE?

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 Valuation Tribunals (Consequential Modifications and Saving and Transitional Provisions) (England) 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
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£200
Standard scale
Level 1
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
Status not determined
Made
25 August 2009
In force from
1 October 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.

Part 13 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 establishes the Valuation Tribunal for England (“the VTE”), abolishes existing valuation tribunals in England and transfers their jurisdiction to the VTE. Part 13 and the related Schedules 15 and 16 are partially in force by virtue of S.I. 2008/917. The rest of that Part and those Schedules are brought into force on 1st October 2009 by virtue of S.I. 2008/3110. These Regulations, which apply in relation to England only, are made in consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction to the VTE. Regulation 3 provides for the Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals Regulations 1989 (“the 1989 Regulations”) to have effect, as to England, as if made under Schedule 11 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Those Regulations are revoked, as to England, with the exception of Part 4, which relates to community charge appeals, and specified provisions of Part 1. Part 4 and the specified provisions of Part 1 are modified as shown in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations. The opportunity has been taken to make minor changes, including taking into account in the modified regulation 31(1)(d) that the Upper Tribunal has superseded the Lands Tribunal. There are also minor drafting changes, including the use in the modified Part 4 of words that are gender-neutral. The saved provisions of Parts 1 and 4, as modified, are set out in Part 2 of the Schedule. Regulation 4 makes transitional provision in relation to any community charge appeals that may have been made but not determined by 1st October 2009 and any reviews of decisions on such appeals that have not been concluded by that date. (Part 5 of the 1989 Regulations, which deals with council tax appeals, is re-enacted with changes to take account of the transfer of jurisdiction to the VTE, and other minor and drafting changes, in the Council Tax (Alterations of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2270) and the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2269).) No impact assessment has been produced for these Regulations as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen.

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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence
0.72 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