UK Offence Report

Powers of commander of aircraft.

paragraph 94(6) of SCHEDULE 1 of The Tokyo Convention (Anguilla) Order 1987

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

6 The commander of an aircraft—

a if he disembarks any person in pursuance of subsection (5)(a) above, in the case of

a British-controlled aircraft, in any country or, in the case of any other aircraft, in Anguilla, shall report the fact of, and the reasons for, that disembarkation to—

i an appropriate authority in the country of disembarkation; and

ii the appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of that person;

b if he intends to deliver any person in accordance with subsection (5)(b) above in the United Kingdom or in Anguilla or any other colony or, in the case of

a British-controlled aircraft, in any other country which is

a Convention country, shall before or as soon as reasonably practicable after landing give notification of his intention and of the reasons therefor—

i where the country in question is the United Kingdom, to

a constable or immigration officer or, in the case of Anguilla or any other colony or any other country, to an officer having functions corresponding to the functions in the United Kingdom either of

a constable or of an immigration officer;

ii in either case to the appropriate diplomatic or consular office of the country of nationality of that person; and any commander of an aircraft who without reasonable cause fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction in Anguilla to

a fine not exceeding EC$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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
a person
Conduct
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Objective fault
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened and that it fell below the standard the provision sets. That is an objective test - what a reasonable person in the same position would have done, not what this defendant actually thought.

What a person personally believed or intended is not the question; the standard is what was reasonable.

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

Classifier’s reasoning: objective standard in the offence-creating words: reasonably practicable.

What would breach paragraph 94(6) of SCHEDULE 1?

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 a person without reasonable cause fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection.
  2. Being served with a notice under the Tokyo Convention (Anguilla) Order 1987 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
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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.

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
18 March 1987
In force from
17 April 1987
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order extends to Anguilla, with adaptations and modifications, certain provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which were previously contained in the Tokyo Convention Act 1967. It also extends to Anguilla certain provisions of the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 and the Aviation Security Act 1982 relating to piracy.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same 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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction
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