UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulations 1989

the instrument as a whole of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulations 1989

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

Contravening this instrument is an offence under section

61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The instrument itself contains no offence-creating words.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Not determined

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.

Classifier’s reasoning: contravention offences of this kind are strict as to the breach; the fault position is governed by the parent Act and was not read from it.

What would breach the instrument as a whole?

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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulations 1989.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to section 61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

the penalty is in the parent Act, not in this instrument.

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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996
Revoked on
21 November 1996
Made
7 November 1989
In force from
28 November 1989
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 note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations re-enact the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983 with amendments. Some minor and drafting amendments have been made. The principal changes are– a The division of investigations by Inspectors into formal investigations which are the subject of a report to the Secretary of State and field investigations following which information on the accident is to be submitted to the CAA (regulations 2, 10 and 11). b The insertion of a new definition of “serious injury” to conform with the definition in Annex 13 (seventh edition) to the Chicago Convention (regulation 2). c The extension of the scope of the Regulations to accidents involving aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom occurring outside the United Kingdom to enable evidence to be obtained in respect of any such accident in order to assist the state conducting an investigation into the accident, in conformity with Annex 13 (seventh edition) to the Chicago Convention (regulations 3 and 21). d The prohibition of disclosure of the contents of a notice or Inspector’s report served under regulation 12 without the prior consent of the Chief Inspector (regulation 12) e The introduction of a requirement that a person requesting a review board shall include in the notice of review the reasons why he claims that his reputation is likely to be adversely affected by the report (regulation 13). f The procedure at the preliminary meeting of the Review Board is amended so that the meeting may be held in private and the Review Board may decide at the meeting not to proceed with the review (regulation 14). g At the hearing of the review the person requesting the review shall present his case first. The Review Board’s power to make an order as to costs against a person appearing at the review is extended to include the costs of any other person appearing at the review (regulation 15). h Consequent on the introduction of a power in regulation 14 for the Review Board to decide not to proceed with the review at the preliminary hearing the Secretary of State is given power to direct that the review be proceeded with (regulation 17). Copies of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention are obtainable from the Civil Aviation Authority, Printing and Publication Services, Greville House, 37 Gratton Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2BN.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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 0.55.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.55 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