UK Offence Report

Duties on occurrence of an accident caused by presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle

article 175 of Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981

The instrument creating this offence has not been revoked so far as the data shows.

What the provision says

(3)(4) rep. by 1996 NI 10

5 Where an accident occurs owing to the presence on

a road or other public place of

a mechanically propelled vehicle and that vehicle was being driven or, when last driven before the accident had been driven, by some person other than the owner of the vehicle, the owner shall give to any constable on demand all such information in his possession or procurement as may assist the constable in obtaining the name and address of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident or of the last driver of the vehicle prior to the accident and any person who acts in contravention of this paragraph shall be guilty of an offence 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an owner
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (knowingly) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

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: no fault word in the offence-creating words, but the surrounding provision uses knowingly, reasonably practicable - which element it governs was not determined.

The defence, as drafted

paragraph (3)( b) in relation to a person employed by him, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that he, or, as the case may be, the person employed by him, was not at the material time registered in the register of approved driving instructors. 5 Any person who knowingly makes a false statem

What would breach article 175?

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 an owner acts in contravention of this paragraph.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

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

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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
In force
Made
10 February 1981
In force from
Not determined
Extent
N.I.

How this was established: read from the revised (currently in force) text.

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