What would breach article 9(2) of The Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996?

Not telling the authority about an event the instrument makes notifiable under the Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996, or telling them after the period allowed has run out. Assuming a notification made for another purpose, or by somebody else, satisfies this requirement.

Provision against danger to navigation

Q: Is article 9(2) of The Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996 a strict liability offence?

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.

article 9(2) of The Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996

Status not determined
Strict liability
Either way
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harbours

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

2 If without reasonable excuse the Commissioners fail to notify Trinity House as required by this article or to comply in any respect with a direction given under this article, they shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: failing to notify or register
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 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.

“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).

The defence, as drafted

2 If without reasonable excuse the Commissioners fail to notify Trinity House as required by this article or to comply in any respect with a direction given under this article, they shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on ind

What would breach article 9(2)?

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.

Not telling the authority about an event the instrument makes notifiable under the Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996, or telling them after the period allowed has run out.
Assuming a notification made for another purpose, or by somebody else, satisfies this requirement.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: £5,000
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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 February 2016
Covers breaches of duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the regulations made under it, and food safety and food hygiene offences. Sentencing turns on culpability and on the seriousness and likelihood of harm risked, not only on the harm that happened.
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 21 June 1996
In force from: 8 July 1996
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 Order authorises the Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners to construct works at the harbour, including a new lock between the Outer and Inner Harbour, the extension and strengthening of the harbour walls, and the provision of piled moorings together with pontoon systems in the Inner Harbour, Custom House Dock, South Harbour and Queens Dock. The Order excludes certain commercial vessels from the use of the harbour and restricts the Inner Harbour, Custom House Dock and South Harbour to pleasure craft and certain other vessels. The Order also makes provision in modern terms for the management of the harbour, particularly by conferring on the Commissioners or officers of the Commissioners various powers (for example, general powers for the improvement of the harbour; and power to make byelaws, to give directions to vessels, to remove obstructions, and to grant leases).

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.

Harbours Bill Hl Lords · 5 March 2003 · Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has the support of the ports industry, which has identified an anomaly in the Harbours Act 1964. The Bill is intended to remove that anomaly. It will essentially achieve a much needed degree of deregulation for the ports industry by applying the same rules to the maritime sector as are applied to other transport modes. The background to the…
Harbours Bill Hl Lords · 7 January 2004 · Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I can tell your Lordships that the Bill has the support of the ports industry, which has identified an anomaly in the Harbours Act 1964. This Bill is intended to remove that anomaly and is essentially a Bill to achieve a much needed degree of deregulation for the ports industry by applying the same rules to the maritime sector as are applied…

Other offences in the same instrument

Permanent lights on tidal worksarticle 12(2)
Failure to comply with directionsarticle 28
General rules for navigationarticle 35
Vessels adriftarticle 36(1)
Fine for obstructing worksarticle 7

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 0.72.

Basis: the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence: 0.72 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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Whitehaven Harbour Revision Order 1996 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1996