UK Offence Report

Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847

article 2(1) of The Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988

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

1 The provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (except sections

6 to 23, 25, 26, 48, 49, 50, 95, 97,

98 and 101) are hereby incorporated with this Order: Provided that in construing the provisions so incorporated—

a the expression “special Act” shall mean this Order, the expression “company” shall mean the Company, the expression “the harbour, dock or pier” shall mean the Harbour as defined by the Sutton Harbour Act 1847 and “the prescribed limits” shall mean the limits of the Harbour as so defined;

b section

52 shall extend to empower the harbour master of the Company to give directions prohibiting the mooring of vessels within the harbour, dock or pier;

c section

53 shall not be construed to require the harbour master of the Company to serve

a notice in writing of his directions upon the master of

a vessel but such directions may be given orally or otherwise communicated to such master, provided that

a notice which is not in writing shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless in the opinion of the court before whom any case may be heard it was not reasonably practicable to serve

a written notice on the master of the vessel;

d section

63 shall have effect as if for the words from “liable to” to the end of the section there were substituted the words “guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding £400”;

e section

69 shall have effect as if for the words from “forfeit” to the end of the section there were substituted the words “be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding £400”;

f for the purposes of section

85 the confirming authority shall be the Secretary of State who may confirm or refuse to confirm any byelaw submitted for confirmation or confirm the same with such modifications as he sees fit.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 confirming authority
Conduct
failing to do something the instrument requires
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 an confirming authority 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 article 2(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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£400
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
27 October 1988
In force from
28 October 1988
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 authorises the Sutton Harbour Company to construct a sea wall adjacent to the East Pier of the seaward entrance to the harbour of Sutton Pool in the port of Plymouth and to reclaim land as requisite for these works. The Order also makes further provision as to the fish market of the Company at the harbour and for the repeal of certain provisions of the Sutton Harbour Acts and Orders 1847 to 1986. The applicants for the Order are the Sutton Harbour Company.

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; 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