What would breach article 7 of The Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988?

On these words an offence is committed where a person moves any pole, stake, station point or bench mark established for the purpose of such setting out without reasonable excuse. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988. 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.

Obstruction of works

Q: Is article 7 of The Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988 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 (intentionally).

article 7 of The Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988

Status not determined
Requires proof of a state of mind
Summary only
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harbours

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

7 Any person who intentionally obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of the works or who moves any pole, stake, station point or bench mark established for the purpose of such setting out without reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
a fine not exceeding £400.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally).

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

bench mark established for the purpose of such setting out without reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.

What would breach article 7?

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 moves any pole, stake, station point or bench mark established for the purpose of such setting out without reasonable excuse.
Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988.
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: 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.

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.
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: 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 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

Lights on tidal works during the constructionarticle 12(2)
Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 2(1)
Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 2(1)(d)
Provision against danger to navigationarticle 9(2)

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 Sutton Harbour Revision Order 1988 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1988