UK Offence Report

25 1 Subject to paragraph (4), a person is guilty of an offence where the person— a intentionally or…

regulation 25(1) of The Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Unloading and Storage (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2020

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

25 1 Subject to paragraph (4), a person is guilty of an offence where the person— a intentionally or recklessly provides to the Secretary of State relevant information which is false or misleading in a material way; b fails to provide information required under regulation 23(2)(a) or (c); or c wilfully obstructs an inspector appointed under regulation 23(1). 2 “Relevant information” is information— a contained in an environmental statement; b provided under regulations 6(1), 6(2), 7(1), 9(2), 10(2), 12(1), 18(3)(c), 23(2)(a) or 23(2)(c); or c any other information that the developer is required to provide by virtue of any provision of these Regulations.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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, recklessly, wilfully).

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: wilfully, intentionally, recklessly.

The defence, as drafted

ffence by virtue of section 21 of the Petroleum Act 1998. 5 It is a defence to a charge under paragraph (3)(b) for the developer to show that— a it took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence; or b the acts in question were required to be done as a matter of urgency for the purposes of securing the safety of a person. 6 An offence under this regulation is punishable— a on

What would breach regulation 25(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 Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Unloading and Storage (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2020.
  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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
8 December 2020
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 implement Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (O.J. L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1), and amendments made to that Directive by Directive 2014/52/EU (O.J. L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1), for projects that fall under Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of these Regulations. These are projects related to offshore oil and gas exploration and production, offshore gas unloading and storage, and offshore capture and storage of carbon dioxide. The Directives were previously implemented for such projects by the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/360) and its amending instruments. These Regulations consolidate and replace S.I. 1999/360, and also make changes to the previous regime. Regulation 4 of these Regulations provides that projects cannot commence without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority, and that the Oil and Gas Authority cannot grant consent without the Secretary of State’s agreement. Regulation 5 sets out when a project must be subject to an environmental impact assessment (an “EIA”) before a decision is made by the Secretary of State on whether to agree to the grant of consent for the project. Projects which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment must undergo an EIA. Projects that fall under Schedule 1 require an EIA. Projects that fall under Schedule 2 must apply to the Secretary of State for a screening direction to decide if an EIA is required, or the developer can choose that the project undergoes an EIA (regulations 5 and 6). For projects that fall under Schedule 3, an application for a screening direction is not required from the developer and the Secretary of State decides whether an EIA is required without undertaking a screening direction (regulations 5 and 7). Where an EIA is required (or chosen), the process set out in regulations 8 to 16 applies. This includes a requirement for the project to undergo public consultation. These Regulations are made pursuant to the power to implement EU law under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68). Also, fees provisions have been drafted using the power at section 56 of the Finance Act 1973 (c. 51). Changes to the fee provisions set out in S.I. 1999/360 have been made for the services provided by the Secretary of State to developers, so the provisions reflect the structure of these Regulations (regulation 22). Other changes from S.I. 1999/360 include: the introduction of inspection and investigation provisions in order to monitor compliance by developers with these Regulations and conditions attached to the Secretary of State’s agreement to the grant of consent for a project, and the introduction of new offences related to these provisions (regulations 23 and 25); the introduction of provisions enabling the Secretary of State to revoke the agreement to the grant of consent for a project (regulation 26); amendments to the Offshore Environmental Civil Sanctions Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/800) so that civil sanctions apply as an alternative to prosecution (regulation 27). These Regulations were notified to the European Commission in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2014/52/EU, and in line with the EU Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. A transposition note setting out how these Regulations implement Directive 2011/92/EU and Directive 2014/52/EU is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum, which is published alongside the instrument on the legislation website of The National Archives (http://www.legislation.gov.uk).

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 →

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