Provision for loss of certificate.

Q: Is paragraph 18(3) of SCHEDULE 2 of The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Bermuda) Order 1991 a strict liability offence?

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 master meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

paragraph 18(3) of SCHEDULE 2 of The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Bermuda) Order 1991

Status not determined
Strict liability
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

3 The provisional certificate shall within ten days after the first subsequent arrival of the ship at Hamilton be delivered up to the Registrar of Shipping, and the Registrar of Shipping shall thereupon grant the new certificate of registry; and if the master without reasonable cause fails to deliver up the provisional certificate within the ten days aforesaid, he shall be liable to
a fine not exceeding seven hundred and fifty dollars.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 master
Conduct: failing to do something the instrument requires
Fault element: Strict liability
Burden of proof: No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach paragraph 18(3) of SCHEDULE 2?

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.

Not doing what the provision requires under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Bermuda) Order 1991, by the time it requires it to be done.
Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Not determined
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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.

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: 24 July 1991
In force from: 22 August 1991
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 revokes and re-enacts with minor and drafting amendments the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Bermuda) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1334), which extended to Bermuda certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, subject to the modifications specified in Schedules 1 and 2. The 1989 Order had not been brought into force in Bermuda pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 thereof.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Evidence on first registryparagraph 10(3) of SCHEDULE 2
Custody of certificateparagraph 15(2) of SCHEDULE 2
Rules as to name of shipparagraph 47(8) of SCHEDULE 2
Registry of alterationsparagraph 48(2) of SCHEDULE 2
Forgery of documentsparagraph 66 of SCHEDULE 2
False declarationsparagraph 67 of SCHEDULE 2
False declarationsparagraph 67(1) of SCHEDULE 2
False declarationsparagraph 67(2) of SCHEDULE 2
Marking of shipparagraph 7(3) of SCHEDULE 2
Marking of shipparagraph 7(5) of SCHEDULE 2
Penalty for concealing British character of a shipparagraph 70 of SCHEDULE 2
National colours for ships, and penalty on carrying improper coloursparagraph 73(2) of SCHEDULE 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 0.68.

Basis: the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence: 0.68 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 Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Bermuda) Order 1991 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1991