UK Offence Report

4 It is an offence for a person— a to intentionally obstruct an enforcement authority acting in the…

regulation 7(4) of The Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018

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

4 It is an offence for

a person—

a to intentionally obstruct an enforcement authority acting in the execution or enforcement of EU Regulation 2016/425;

b without reasonable cause, to fail to give such an enforcement authority any assistance or information which that person may reasonably require for those purposes;

c to knowingly or recklessly furnish to such an enforcement authority any information knowing it to be false or misleading in

a material particular; or

d to fail to produce

a document or record for such an enforcement authority when required to do so.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Legal burden on the defendant

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, knowingly, knowingly or recklessly, recklessly).

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, knowing it to be, knowingly or recklessly.

The defence, as drafted

ulations, it is a defence for a person (“P”) to show that P took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. 2 P may not rely on a defence under paragraph (1) which involves a third party allegation unless P has— a served notice in accordance with paragraph (3); or b obtained leave of the court. 3 The notice must— a give any informat

What would breach regulation 7(4)?

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 Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
  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
Unlimited
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months

level 5 is unlimited in England and Wales for offences committed on or after 12 March 2015 (LASPO 2012 s.85, S.I. 2015/664).

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 March 2018
In force from
21 April 2018
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 provide for the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/425 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on personal protective equipment (OJ No L81, 31.3.2016, p51) (“EU Regulation 2016/425”). EU Regulation 2016/425 repeals and replaces Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (OJ No L399, 30.12.1989, p18); which was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/1144) (as amended). These Regulations revoke S.I. 2002/1144 with savings (see regulation 2). Regulation 3 designates market surveillance authorities for the purpose of EU Regulation 2016/425 and these Regulations. Regulations 4, 5 and Schedules 1 to 4 provide for enforcement authorities and their powers of enforcement. Offences and penalties are set out in regulations 7 and 8. The remainder of Part 2 provisions deal with related enforcement and procedural issues such as defences, liability of third parties, time limits, service of documents, appeals and compensation, etc. Regulation 18 sets out a process for the Secretary of State to review the regulatory provision contained within these Regulations and publish a report setting out the conclusions of that review. The first such report must be published within five years after the coming into force date of this instrument and subsequent reviews must be carried out every five years after that. Schedule 5 contains amendments to other legislation which are consequential to these Regulations. A Transposition Note is published with the Explanatory Memorandum alongside these Regulations on www.legislation.gov.uk. The EU Regulations referred to above are published at http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

This instrument became law without a debate or a vote. Under the negative procedure it took effect unless a motion to stop it succeeded, and none was tabled.

Neither House could have amended it. A statutory instrument is put to each House as a whole thing, to be approved or not; the Houses can reject an instrument or record their regret, but they cannot change a word of it. That is the constitutional position for every offence on this site.

The full procedural history →

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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