UK Offence Report

Power to prevent aeroplanes flying

regulation 6 of The Aeroplane Noise (Limitation on Operation of Aeroplanes) Regulations 1993

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 Where the CAA or an authorised person has reason to believe that an aeroplane is intended to be operated by any person without the noise certificate required to be in force in respect of that aeroplane by regulation

4 above, the CAA or the authorised person may—

a give to the person appearing to the CAA or the authorised person to be in command of the aeroplane

a direction that he shall not permit the aeroplane to take off until the CAA or the authorised person has informed him that the direction is cancelled,

b whether or not the CAA or the authorised person has given such

a direction, detain the aeroplane until the CAA or the authorised person is satisfied that the aeroplane will not be so operated, and

a person, who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with

a direction given to him in pursuance of this regulation 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 authorised person
Conduct
acting without the licence or authorisation required
Fault element
Objective fault
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened and that it fell below the standard the provision sets. That is an objective test - what a reasonable person in the same position would have done, not what this defendant actually thought.

What a authorised person personally believed or intended is not the question; the standard is what was reasonable.

“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: objective standard in the offence-creating words: has reason to believe; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

t the aeroplane will not be so operated, and a person, who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a direction given to him in pursuance of this regulation shall be guilty of an offence.

What would breach regulation 6?

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 authorised person fails to comply with a direction given to him in pursuance of this regulation.
  2. Starting the activity before the licence is granted, rather than on the day it takes effect under the Aeroplane Noise (Limitation on Operation of Aeroplanes) Regulations 1993.
  3. Carrying on after a licence has expired, been surrendered or been suspended.
  4. Relying on somebody else's authorisation, where the provision requires the person doing the act to hold one.

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.

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 Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999
Revoked on
27 May 1999
Made
7 June 1993
In force from
1 July 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 Directive 92/14/EEC of 2nd March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and matters related thereto. (Copies of the Convention and of Annex 16 may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority, Greville House, 37 Gratton Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2BN.) These are aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 34,000 kilograms or more or with a certified internal accommodation for the aeroplane type in question consisting of more than nineteen passenger seats, excluding any seats for crew only (regulation 3). The operation of such aeroplanes will gradually be phased out between 1st April 1995 and 31st March 2002 (regulation 4), although various exemptions may be granted by the CAA after consultation with the Secretary of State (regulations 10 to 16). These Regulations create offences of operating a relevant aeroplane without carrying an appropriate noise certificate (regulation 4), of failing to produce the noise certificate (regulation 5), of failing to comply with a direction not to take off (regulation 6) and of obstructing a person acting in the exercise of his powers of the performance or his duties (regulation 8).

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