UK Offence Report

Type approval

article 3 of The Road Traffic (Type Approval) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985

The instrument creating this offence has not been revoked so far as the data shows.

What the provision says

Offences, etc., relating to type approval 31E 1 If any person at any time on or after the day appointed by regulations made by the Department uses or causes or permits to be used on a road a motor vehicle in relation to which type approval requirements prescribed by those regulations apply or a motor vehicle to which is fitted a vehicle part in relation to which type approval requirements prescribed by those regulations apply, and it does not appear from one or more certificates then in force under Article 31A or under any corresponding enactment having effect in Great Britain that the motor vehicle or vehicle part complies with those requirements, he 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
a person
Conduct
breaching the provision
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 - 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 reasonable cause to believe - which element it governs was not determined.

The defence, as drafted

on shall not be convicted of an offence under paragraph (2) if he proves that the alteration was not specified in the relevant Department's approval certificate under Article 31B(4). 4 The Department may by regulations— a exempt from paragraphs (1) and (2) the use of motor vehicles for prescribed purposes; and b make provision for

What would breach article 3?

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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Road Traffic (Type Approval) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

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
15 May 1985
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