UK Offence Report

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which lies with the person, that…

article 6(1) of The Plant Health (Ips typographus) (England) Order 2019

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

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which lies with the person, that person—

a contravenes any prohibition in article 4(2); or

b intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of the powers given to the inspector by or under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

1 A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, proof of which lies with the person, that person— a contravenes any prohibition in article 4(2); or b intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise of the powers given to the inspector by or under this Order.

What would breach article 6(1)?

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 Plant Health (Ips typographus) (England) Order 2019.
  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
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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
15 January 2019
In force from
16 January 2019
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order introduces specific measures for the control in England of infestations of Ips typographus (Heer) (the larger eight-toothed spruce bark beetle) which is a serious pest of conifer trees. Article 3 makes provision for the Forestry Commissioners to demarcate an area of England (which may further be divided into an infested area and a controlled area) and to specify the susceptible material (see article 2(1)) to which the prohibitions on movement in article 4 are to apply in response to a confirmed finding of Ips typographus. Article 4 prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the movement of susceptible material within or out of a demarcated area, or an infested or controlled area, as described in a notice published under the Order, without the written authority of a plant health inspector. Article 5 contains provisions relating to inspection and enforcement. Article 6 makes it an offence to contravene a prohibition on the movement of susceptible material contained in Article 4(2). A person guilty of an offence under article 6 is liable on summary conviction to a fine. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as no or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

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 →

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 “commits 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