UK Offence Report

Airport coordinator

regulation 6(1) of The Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 An air carrier which fails without reasonable excuse to furnish to

a coordinator relevant information requested by that coordinator by virtue of article

7 of the Council Regulation in the form and at the times specified in

a written notice of request shall be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 air carrier
Conduct
breaching the provision
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 air carrier 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); other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

The defence, as drafted

1 An air carrier which fails without reasonable excuse to furnish to a coordinator relevant information requested by that coordinator by virtue of article 7 of the Council Regulation in the form and at the times specified in a written notice of request shall be guilty of an offence.

What would breach regulation 6(1)?

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 Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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 Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006
Revoked on
1 January 2007
Made
14 April 1993
In force from
12 May 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations make provision for implementing the Community obligations of the United Kingdom provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. The airport operator is named the competent authority for the purposes of article 6.1 of the Council Regulation (regulation 2(2)). Provision is made for publication of any determination that an airport be designated a coordinated or a fully coordinated airport, be a coordinated airport for which a coordination committee is set up or be a coordinated airport for which capacity shall be determined (regulations 3 and 7). Provision is made for the appointment of an approved coordinator for a coordinated or fully coordinated airport and his dismissal if he fails to act in an independent manner (regulation 4). In exercising his duties an airport coordinator is bound to have regard to any reservation of slots for regional services effected by the Secretary of State (regulation 5). The airport coordination committee is given the duty of meeting when serious problems for new entrants persist (regulation 8). Offences are created where a person acts as coordinator when not approved as such, where an air carrier fails to give the coordinator requested relevant information and where an air carrier exchanges or transfers slots contrary to the requirements of the Council Regulation (regulations 4(5) and (6), 6, 9, 11 and 12). Provision is made for the giving of notice when the obligations of the Council Regulation are suspended (regulation 10).

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 0.92.

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