What would breach article 33 of The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (revoked)?

Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

False and misleading statements

Q: Is article 33 of The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (revoked) a strict liability offence?

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

article 33 of The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (revoked)

Status not determined
Requires proof of a state of mind
Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and tax

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

33 After Article 16B of the Insider Dealing Order (inserted by Article
32 of this Order) there shall be inserted— False and misleading statements 16C Any person who, in purported compliance with any requirement imposed on him by or under this Order, furnishes information which he knows to be false or misleading in
a material particular or recklessly furnishes information which is false or misleading in
a material particular shall be guilty of an offence. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: making a false or misleading statement
Fault element: Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof: No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: recklessly.

What would breach article 33?

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.

Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014
Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 19 December 1989
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 Order— a in Part II re-enacts provisions of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 relating to the disqualification of company directors and imposes a duty on the High Court to disqualify a company director if he is found to be unfit to be concerned in the management of a company; b in Part III makes miscellaneous amendments to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The main amendments are— i to make new provision with repspect to takeover offers in respect of companies; ii to make provision for the investigation of insider dealing; iii to restrict the disclosure of information obtained as the result of an investigation of insider dealing; iv to provide a power of entry and inspection for the purpose of investigating insider dealing; v to increase the term of imprisonment on conviction of the offence of insider dealing from 2 years to 7 years; and vi to make minor corrections in the consolidated Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

If a person acts in contravention of a disqualification order or of Article 14, 15(2) or 16, he shall be…article 17
Takeover offersarticle 26(1)

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (revoked) Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and taxOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1989