UK Offence Report

3 In section 11 (destroying ships or fixed platforms or endangering their safety)— a in subsection (4) and…

SCHEDULE of The Maritime Security (Jersey) Order 1996

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 In section 11 (destroying ships or fixed platforms or endangering their safety)—

a in subsection (4) and subsection (5)(b) for the words “the United Kingdom” there shall be substituted “Jersey”;

b in subsection (5)(c) after the words “United Kingdom”, wherever they occur, there shall be inserted “or Jersey”;

c in subsection (6) the words “on conviction on indictment” shall be omitted; and

d for subsection (7) there shall be substituted—

7 In this section— “act of violence” means— any act done in Jersey, which constitutes the offence of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or assault or an offence under Article

2 of the Loi (1884) sur les Matieres Explosives, and any act done outside Jersey which, if done in Jersey, would constitute such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above, and “unlawfully”— in relation to the commission of an act in Jersey, means so as (apart from this Act) to constitute an offence under the law of Jersey, and in relation to the commission of an act outside Jersey, means so that the commission of the act would (apart from this Act) have been an offence under the law of Jersey if it has been committed in Jersey. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
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 lawful excuse (an element).

The defence, as drafted

ives or any act which involves— i the destruction or damage without lawful excuse of any property belonging to another where the person doing the act intends to destroy or damage such property or is reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged; or ii the destruction or damage without lawful excuse of any property whet

What would breach SCHEDULE?

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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Maritime Security (Jersey) Order 1996.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

the level is stated but no money value is given: this instrument extends outside the United Kingdom, where the standard scale set by s.122(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 does not run.

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 Maritime Security (Jersey) Order 2014
Made
19 November 1996
In force from
1 January 1997
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order extends those provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 which are set out in Part I of the Schedule to the Order to the Bailiwick of Jersey. The provisions are subject to the modifications specified in Part II of that Schedule.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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