UK Offence Report

Restriction of works and dredging

article 9(4) of The Montrose Harbour Revision Order 1991

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

4 Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes this article shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

4 Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes this article shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

What would breach article 9(4)?

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. On these words an offence is committed where a person without reasonable excuse contravenes this article.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Montrose Harbour Revision Order 1991, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£400
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 3 value when the instrument came into force (1991-07-23); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean £1000.

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
4 June 1991
In force from
23 July 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 note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order– a changes the name of the Trustees of the Harbour of Montrose to “the Montrose Port Authority”; b reconstitutes the Montrose Port Authority so as to consist of– i a chairman and three other members appointed by the Secretary of State; ii one member appointed by Tayside Regional Council; iii one member appointed by Angus District Council; iv one member appointed by Montrose Community Council; v the chief executive officer of the Authority; and vi at the discretion of the Authority up to two other members appointed by the Authority; c empowers the Authority to adopt as their financial year such period of twelve consecutive months as they think fit and provides for the annual appointment, and qualifications of the Authority’s auditors; d contains provisions for licensing by the Authority of works below high water mark and dredging in the Harbour; e empowers the Authority to provide vessels and towage services and to acquire or dispose of certain businesses or shares and provides that the Authority shall not be responsible for the safety of goods deposited in any part of the harbour estate not specifically set apart by the Authority for the purpose of warehousing.

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 0.92.

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