UK Offence Report

Penal notices

article 10 of The Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) 1992

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

10 For Order 45, rule 7(4) there shall be substituted the following—

4 There must be prominently displayed on the front of the copy of an order served under this rule

a warning to the person on whom the copy is served that disobedience to the order would be

a contempt of court punishable by imprisonment, or (in the case of an order requiring

a body corporate to do or abstain from doing an act) punishable by sequestration of the assets of the body corporate and by imprisonment of any individual responsible. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 article 10?

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 Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) 1992.

Penalty

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

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
Status not determined
Made
10 March 1992
In force from
Not determined
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 Rules) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Rules amend the Rules of the Supreme Court so as— a pursuant to provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to require leave to appeal to the High Court in some cases, to give the High Court and Court of Appeal powers to give certain directions in some such cases, pending the final determination of an appeal, and to enable injunctions to be granted in certain cases against persons whose identities are unknown to those applying for them (rules 2 to 4)— b to alter references to provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c. 78) which have been replaced by provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9) (rule 3) — c to allow summary judgment to be given in civil actions for fraud (rule 5) — d to enable a cross-examination on a (Mareva) assets disclosure affidavit to be held before a master or examiner of the Court (rule 6) — e to enable payments to receivers to be assessed by a taxing master with an appeal to a judge in chambers (rule 7) — f o provide for appeals from masters on assessments of damages and related matters to lie to the Court of Appeal (rules 8 and 9) — g to clarify the provisions as to penal notices on injunctions (rule10) — h to allow taxing masters to exercise the power of the Court to require legal representatives personally to pay court fees, with an appeal to a judge in chambers (rule 11) — i to increase the costs allowed to a litigant in person and the fixed costs recoverable under Appendix 3 to Order 62 (rules 12 and 13) — j to provide for grants of representation to be endorsed where the Court exercises its power under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to appoint a substitute for, or to remove, a personal representative (rule 14) — k to amend the form of judgment in Order 14 proceedings (Form No. 44) by removing the reference to “costs to be taxed” so that the making of the order for costs will normally be delayed until after the damages are assessed (rule 15) — l to make some miscellaneous amendments removing obsolete provisions and making a minor correction (rules 16 to 20).

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 0.60.

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