UK Offence Report

Amendments to the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003

regulation 2(9) of The End-of-Life Vehicles (Amendment) Regulations 2010

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 For regulation 23, substitute— 23

1 A producer who fails to comply with any of the requirements of the following regulations—

a regulation 16;

b regulation 18; and

c regulation

20 shall be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 producer
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a producer meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach regulation 2(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. On these words an offence is committed where a producer fails to comply with any of the requirements of the following regulations— a regulation 16; b regulation 18; and c regulation 20.
  2. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the End-of-Life Vehicles (Amendment) Regulations 2010.
  3. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  4. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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
29 March 2010
In force from
Not determined
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 amend the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003 (S.I.2003/2635) (“the 2003 Regulations”). The 2003 Regulations partially implement Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34) (“the ELV Directive”). Regulation 2(2)(a) amends the definition of EEA state. The new definition refers to the definition of “EEA State” inserted into the Interpretation Act 1978 by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006; this includes all Community member States. Regulation 2(2)(b) inserts definitions of “enforcement authority” and “enforcement officer”. Regulation 2(2)(c) transposes Article 4 of Directive 2008/112/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th December 2008 (OJ No L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 68) which amends the ELV Directive in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16th December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ No L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1). Regulation 2(3) substitutes a new regulation 6 which provides that a person who puts on the market materials and components of vehicles shall ensure that they do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium except in the cases listed in Annex II to the ELV Directive, as that Annex is amended from time to time. Regulations 2(4)-(7) make necessary consequential amendments. Regulation 2(8) inserts a new regulation 22A which gives an enforcement authority powers of entry and inspection. Regulation 2(13) and (14) omit regulation 35 and Schedule 1 of the 2003 Regulations respectively. An Impact Assessment (“IA”) in respect of these Regulations is available. As these Regulations transpose provisions of European Union law a transposition note (“TN”) has been prepared. Copies of the IA and TN can be obtained from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET. Copies of these documents have been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament and are also annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the OPSI website.

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