UK Offence Report

8 A person who contravenes any of paragraphs 3 to 6 or obstructs the exercise of powers by an authorised…

paragraph 8 of SCHEDULE 3 of The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993

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

8 A person who contravenes any of paragraphs 3 to 6 or obstructs the exercise of powers by an authorised person under paragraph 7 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable— a on conviction on indictment to a fine, and b on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
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 paragraph 8 of SCHEDULE 3?

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 contravenes any of paragraphs 3 to 6 or obstructs the exercise of powers by an authorised person under paragraph 7.
  2. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993.
  3. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  4. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
Status not determined
Made
16 July 1993
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order gives qualified effect in United Kingdom law to material provisions (set out in Schedule 2) of the Protocol mentioned in article 1. Those provisions (“the international articles”) are by article 3(1) given the force of law in the United Kingdom within, and for the purposes specified in article 2(2) outside, the tunnel system as defined in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and the control zone accorded to France by the international articles (“the French control zone”); article 3(2) affirms that French officers may to the extent specified in the international articles go about their business (essentially, the operation of French frontier controls as defined in the international articles) in the United Kingdom, and article 3(3) ensures that they can be provided with the necessary facilities.Article 4(1), by extending relevant enactments to the control zone accorded to the United Kingdom in France (“the United Kingdom control zone”), performs the corresponding operation for British officers working there.Article 4(2) and (3) alters the application of the Data Protection Act 1984 so that related computer operations carried out by British officers in the United Kingdom control zone are, but French computer operations in the French control zone are not, subject to that Act. Article 5(1) and (2) extends English criminal jurisdiction to conduct in the United Kingdom control zone which, if taking place in England, would constitute an offence under a frontier control enactment as defined in Schedule 1. Article 5(3) creates a presumption as to jurisdiction over offences committed in the tunnel system where it is uncertain on which side of the frontier they were committed. Articles 6, 7(1), 8 and 9 give effect, respectively, to Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6. Article 7(2) and (3) modifies the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) so as to implement rights to carry arms accorded by the international articles to French officers. The definitions in Schedule 1 are of expressions of which some occur both in the body of the Order and in enactments as modified by the Order, some only in the latter (see article 2(1)). The international articles referred to above are set out in Schedule 2. In Part I of Schedule 3, paragraph 1 enables constables and customs officers to assist French officers by taking into temporary custody persons arrested by the latter in the French control zone.Paragraph 2 extends powers of arrest to the United Kingdom control zone; paragraph 3 authorises the detention there of persons arrested, so far as permitted by the international articles, and contains provision as to their treatment while detained.Paragraphs 4 to 6 contain provision as to the determination of national jurisdiction in certain cases and related provision as to the treatment of persons in custody. Part II of Schedule 3 implements obligations assumed by the United Kingdom to make provision to prevent animals from straying into the Fixed Link and to require the tunnel Concessionaires to take all appropriate measures (corresponding obligations are assumed by France). Schedule 4, with article 7(1), modifies the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (“the 1971 Act”), the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (c. 22) and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) (“the 1989 Act”) in their Channel Tunnel application, adapting to rail traffic passing through the tunnel system control provisions framed in terms of movements by sea and air. In Part I of Schedule 5 the amendments to the 1971 Act and the 1989 Act, with the partial repeals in Part I of Schedule 6, cancel amendments made to those Acts by the Channel Tunnel (Fire Services, Immigration and Prevention of Terrorism) Order 1990 (S.I.1990/2227).The amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) is consequential upon provision made in Part II of Schedule 5, which amends a number of instruments, in particular the Channel Tunnel (Customs and Excise) Order 1990 (S.I.1990/2167).The effect of that Order as amended is to adapt provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) to Channel Tunnel rail traffic. The revocations in Part II of Schedule 6 are of provisions which have become spent or have been replaced as a result of provision made in this Order.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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