Penalties

article 33(3) of The Hovercraft (General) Order 1972

• Revoked
• Strict liability
• Summary only
• Miscellaneous

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 If any person contravenes any provision of this Order, not being

a provision referred to in paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of this Article, he shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding ten pounds; or in the case of

a second or subsequent conviction for the like offence to

a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

contravening a requirement of the instrument

Fault element

Strict liability

Burden of proof

No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

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

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach article 33(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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, whatever the reason for doing it.
2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial

Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court

Maximum fine

£10

Maximum prison (summary)

6 months

fine stated in words ("ten pounds") and never uprated in this instrument.

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.

• 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 Hovercraft (Fees) Regulations 1992

Revoked on

16 July 1992

Made

28 April 1972

In force from

31 May 1972

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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order makes provision for the registration, safety certification, maintenance and operational safety of hovercraft. It also includes provision as to ancillary matters affecting the safety of hovercraft and persons and property thereon. Under the Order the Secretary of State will be the authority for the registration of hovercraft and for issuing Operating Permits, while the Civil Aviation Authority will be the authority for certifying the safe construction of hovercraft. The Order empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations by Statutory Instrument prescribing fees, with the approval of the Treasury, in respect of matters relating to hovercraft.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

• Hovercraft (Application Of Enactments) Order 1972 Lords · 15 May 1972

  Some of the aviation legislation which the Order applies to hovercraft includes Section 52, subsections (3) and (5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, thus giving harbour and conservancy authorities certain powers to make by-laws; Section 55 of the same Act enabling the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make regulations concerning the registration of births, deaths and missing persons on or from hovercraft;…

• Hovercraft (Application Of Enactments) Order 1972 Lords · 15 May 1972

  Under a separate Order, the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, provision is made for the registration and safety regulation of hovercraft including certification by the Civil Aviation Authority. This latter Order was made on April 28 and was laid before this House under the Negative Resolution Procedure on May 8. Having now provided a separate system of registration and safety regulation for hovercraft, it is…

• Hovercraft Commons · 23 May 1972 · Mr. Noble

  I welcome this short and interesting debate. I at once apologise to all those who have made the point tonight and to those reading this order, for the extraordinary complication of it. I was amazed by the hard work of the firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) who were able to comprehend it sufficiently to say that they understood it all perfectly on Sunday. My hon.…

• Hovercraft Commons · 23 May 1972 · The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble)

  I beg to move, That the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved. The purpose of the order is to apply to hovercraft, with necessary modifications, certain enactments and instruments relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. The order is made under the Hovercraft Act, 1968, an enabling Act which has very little practical effect…

Other offences in the same instrument

• Penaltiesarticle 33(4)
• Penaltiesarticle 33(5)

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 0.72.

Basis

the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting

Confidence

0.72 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 Hovercraft (General) Order 1972 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
• MiscellaneousOther offences on the same subject
• Offences created in 1972