UK Offence Report

A contributing authority who fail to comply with any requirement of a notice served on them under paragraph…

article 4(2) of The Secretary of State for Transport (Harbour Authorities) Charging Scheme 1982

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

2 A contributing authority who fail to comply with any requirement of

a notice served on them under paragraph (1) above (unless they prove that they had reasonable excuse for the failure) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding £500.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 contributing authority
Conduct
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 an contributing authority 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 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 word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

ement of a notice served on them under paragraph (1) above (unless they prove that they had reasonable excuse for the failure) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

What would breach article 4(2)?

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 contributing authority fail to comply with any requirement of a notice served on them under paragraph (1) above (unless they prove that they had reasonable excuse for the failure).
  2. Being served with a notice under the Secretary of State for Transport (Harbour Authorities) Charging Scheme 1982 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£500
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
Status not determined
Made
6 January 1982
In force from
11 February 1982
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 note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Scheme gives effect to section 16 of the Transport Act 1981 which requires the Secretary of State to levy from harbour authorities such contributions as appear to him to be necessary to meet the expenses specified in subsection (2) of that section after making allowance for the contribution made by him in accordance with subsection (3) thereof. The expenses are contingent upon the dissolution of the National Ports Council in accordance with section 15 of, and Schedule 5 to, the Act for which the appointed day is 1st October 1981 under the Transport Act 1981 (Dissolution of National Ports Council) (Appointed Day) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1364).

Read the full note and every offence in this 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