UK Offence Report

Obstruction

regulation 7 of The Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) 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

7 Any person who—

a intentionally obstructs any person acting in the execution of these Regulations;

b without reasonable cause, fails to give to any person acting in the execution of these Regulations any assistance or information that that person may reasonably require under these Regulations;

c furnishes to any person acting in the execution of these Regulations any information knowing it to be false or misleading; or

d fails to produce

a record when required to do so to any person acting in the execution of these Regulations, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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, knowing it to be).

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, knowing it to be.

What would breach regulation 7?

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 Agriculture (Cross compliance) (No. 2) 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
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
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
20 December 2009
In force from
15 January 2010
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 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, which establishes cross-compliance requirements under Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. They set out the requirements for claimants of subsidy under the single payment scheme. The requirements are set out in Schedule 1, and Schedule 2 lists exceptions from those requirements. They revoke and replace S. I 2009/3264, where the period for casting up hedgebanks was misstated. A full impact assessment has been prepared and placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. It is available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk.

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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction
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