UK Offence Report

Judge advocate sitting alone

article 30(5) of The Courts-Martial (Royal Navy) Rules 1997

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

5 If, while the judge advocate is sitting alone under this rule or at

a pre-trial hearing,

a person subject to the Act commits an offence under section 38(1) of the Act, the judge advocate may report the occurrence to—

a the president; or

b if the offence is committed during

a pre-trial hearing, the commanding officer of the offender.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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 article 30(5)?

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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Courts-Martial (Royal Navy) Rules 1997.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to section 38(1) of the Act.

penalty is that of the referenced enactment; not stated in this instrument.

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 Courts-Martial (Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force) (Evidence) Rules 2006
Revoked on
6 December 2006
Made
12 February 1997
In force from
1 April 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 Rules) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Rules prescribe the procedure to be followed in court-martial trials under the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53). They accord in general with procedures in the Crown Court. These Rules replace and revoke the Naval Courts-Martial General Orders (Royal Navy) 1991 (S.I. 1991/2737) and take account of changes in the law and procedure since then, in particular, to give effect to the changes in the way arrangements are made for court-martial trials made by the Armed Forces Act 1996 (c. 46). The Rules provide for the first time for preliminary proceedings in the form of a hearing for directions, at which directions may be given by the judge advocate, and a pre-trial hearing, at which, as part of the court-martial itself, the judge advocate may make rulings before the trial of the accused commences. Previous special provision for trials in which navigation was an issue have been repealed, so that the relevant expert evidence may now be adduced under the general rules governing the admissibility of such evidence. A new procedure for dealing with mixed pleas has been established and allowance has been made for issues of fact to be tried in relation to charges to which the accused has pleaded guilty. Rules in relation to the admission of television link and video evidence have been included. The power to make Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 orders has been given to commanding officers and judge advocates.

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.

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 “commits an offence”; c10_offence_under_parent_act
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