11 Any person who– a intentionally obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting…
article 19(11) of The Whiteness Marina Harbour Revision Order 2008
- Revoked
- Requires proof of a state of mind
- Summary only
- Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harbours
The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.
What the provision says
11 Any person who–
a intentionally obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out moorings; or
b intentionally and without lawful authority pulls up or removes any mooring in the marina or any part thereof; or
c without reasonable excuse causes or permits
a vessel to be moored in the marina except at
a mooring provided or licensed by the Company under this article or at
a quay, jetty, slipway or other work or to land owned or leased by the Company; or
d places, lays down or maintains in the marina any mooring not provided or licensed by the Company under this article; shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
a fine not exceeding level
3 on the standard scale.
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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
removes any mooring in the marina or any part thereof; or c without reasonable excuse causes or permits a vessel to be moored in the marina except at a mooring provided or licensed by the Company under this article or at a quay, jetty, slipway or other work or to land owned or leased by the Company; or d places, lays down or maintains in the m
What would breach article 19(11)?
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.
- Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Whiteness Marina Harbour Revision Order 2008.
- Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
- 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
- £1,000
- Standard scale
- Level 3
- Maximum prison (summary)
- Not determined
in Scotland a reference to a level is construed as referring to the standard scale as it currently stands (CP(S)A 1995 s.225(2)), not as it stood when the instrument was made.
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.
-
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
-
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
- Revoked
- Revoked by
- The Port of Ardersier Harbour Revision Order 2014
- Revoked on
- 19 August 2014
- Made
- 6 November 2008
- In force from
- 7 November 2008
- Extent
- Not stated
How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.
What the instrument is for
(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.
This Order repeals the McDermott Scotland Order Confirmation Act 1975 and empowers Whiteness Marina Company Limited to construct and maintain a marina and other facilities at Whiteness Head in the area of the Carse of Ardersier in the Highland Area, Inverness District. The Order also confers powers on Whiteness Marina Company Limited to maintain and operate their undertaking at Whiteness Head as a statutory harbour undertaking and defines the limits of jurisdiction of the Marina.
Read the full note and every offence in this instrument
Other offences in the same instrument
- Provision against danger to navigationarticle 12(2)
- Lights on tidal works during constructionarticle 14(2)
- Failure to comply with directionsarticle 26
- Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 3(2)
- Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 3(3)
- Obstruction of workarticle 8
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 Whiteness Marina Harbour Revision Order 2008 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 2008