UK Offence Report

Penalties

regulation 12(3) of Merchant Shipping (Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro/Ro Passenger Ships) Regulations 1989

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

Any such offence shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine of £400 or on conviction on indictment by a fine.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 do something the instrument requires
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 a person 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

13 It shall be a defence for a person charged with committing an offence under these Regulations to show that he took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence.

What would breach regulation 12(3)?

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 Merchant Shipping (Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro/Ro Passenger Ships) Regulations 1989, 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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£2,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
25 January 1989
In force from
20 February 1989
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.

These Regulations apply to United Kingdom ro/ro passenger ships of Classes I, II, II(A) and IV to the extent specified, and include such requirements as appear necessary to ensure that such ships are loaded in accordance with the statutory provisions, relating to stability, of the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) Regulations 1980 or the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984, as amended in each case. In the case of ships of Classes I, II or II(A) the Regulations require the provision of a loading and stability computer or an equivalent means of making stability calculations, and, except in the case of certain Class II(A) ships, of an automatic draught gauge system. The Regulations also require records to be made of the ship’s draught of water, trim and freeboards and the components of its stability before proceeding on any voyage and for such records to be retained for a specified period.

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 0.60.

Basis
the provision says the conduct is “punishable”
Confidence
0.60 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