UK Offence Report

Power to operate and use transit system

article 35(3) of The Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (Eccles Extension) Order 1996

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

3 Any person who, without the consent of the undertaker or other reasonable excuse, uses the apparatus mentioned in paragraph (2) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

2 on the standard scale.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
acting without the licence or authorisation required
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; qualified by absence of consent (an element).

What would breach article 35(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. Starting the activity before the licence is granted, rather than on the day it takes effect under the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (Eccles Extension) Order 1996.
  2. Carrying on after a licence has expired, been surrendered or been suspended.
  3. Relying on somebody else's authorisation, where the provision requires the person doing the act to hold one.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£500
Standard scale
Level 2
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
21 October 1996
In force from
11 November 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 note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order authorises Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive to construct works and compulsorily to acquire land and rights in land for the purpose of extending the Metrolink light rapid transit system to run from Eccles Town Centre to Salford Quays to connect to a part of the Metrolink light rapid transit system in Salford Quays which is already authorised but not yet constructed. A copy of the land plans, the works plans, the sections and the book of reference are available for inspection free of charge during working hours at the following offices:— GMPTE, 9 Portland Street, Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester M60 1HX; City Technical Services Department, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5BW.

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