Powers exercisable on suspicion of intended offence under Part I.

Q: Is paragraph 7(2) of SCHEDULE of The Aviation Security (Anguilla) Order 1987 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 (wilfully).

paragraph 7(2) of SCHEDULE of The Aviation Security (Anguilla) Order 1987

Revoked
Requires proof of a state of mind
Either way
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The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.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

2 Any person who wilfully obstructs or impedes
a person acting in the exercise of
a power conferred on him by subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
a on summary conviction, to
a fine not exceeding EC$5000;
b on conviction on indictment, to
a fine or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years or to both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: 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 (wilfully).

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: wilfully.

What would breach paragraph 7(2) of SCHEDULE?

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.

On these words an offence is committed where a person wilfully obstructs or impedes a person acting in the exercise of a power conferred on him by subsection (1) above.
Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Aviation Security (Anguilla) Order 1987.
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: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment): 2 years

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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.
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
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 Aviation Security and Piracy (Overseas Territories) Order 2000
Revoked on: 6 December 2000
Made: 18 March 1987
In force from: 17 April 1987
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 Order extends to Anguilla, with adaptations and modifications, certain provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982 which were previously contained in the Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973. It also extends to Anguilla the amendments made by the said Acts of 1971 and 1973 to the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1895.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Hijackingparagraph 1(1) of SCHEDULE
Destroying, damaging, or endangering safety of aircraftparagraph 2(2) of SCHEDULE
Destroying, damaging, or endangering safety of aircraftparagraph 2(2)(a) of SCHEDULE
Destroying, damaging, or endangering safety of aircraftparagraph 2(6) of SCHEDULE
Destroying, damaging, or endangering safety of aircraftparagraph 2(6)(a) of SCHEDULE
It shall be an offence for any person in Anguilla to induce or assist the commission outside Anguilla of any…paragraph 6(2) of SCHEDULE

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 Aviation Security (Anguilla) Order 1987 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1987