UK Offence Report

SCHEDULE 4

SCHEDULE 4 of The Extradition (Hijacking) Order 1992

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

PART III FORM OF CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO APPLICATION FOR A PROVISIONAL WARRANT Whereas AB,

a person recognised by the Secretary of State as

a diplomatic or consular representative of, has requested consent to application being made for the issue of

a provisional warrant for the arrest of CD, late of, who [is accused] [has been convicted] of the commission of an offence or attempt to commit an offence or counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting an offence or of being accessory before or after the fact to an offence, within the jurisdiction of the said State, being an offence which if committed in the United Kingdom would be an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 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 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 SCHEDULE 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 [is accused] [has been convicted] of the commission of an offence or attempt.
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Extradition (Hijacking) Order 1992.

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 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

penalty is that of the referenced enactment; not stated 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 Extradition (Hijacking) Order 1997
Revoked on
1 September 1997
Made
17 December 1992
In force from
27 January 1993
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order applies the Extradition Act 1989 so as to make extraditable offences under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36) (hijacking), attempts to commit such offences and participation in the commission of such offences. It applies to certain States Parties to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16th December 1970; it does not apply to those States Parties (Commonwealth countries and Parties to the European Convention on Extradition) in relation to which the definition of extraditable offence already includes offences of the kind mentioned in this Order, except to the extent that extradition arrangements continue in force in respect of extradition between Parties to the said European Convention and one or more of the territories specified in Schedule 5.

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 0.61.

Basis
the provision says a person “commits an offence”
Confidence
0.61 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