What would breach article 19(1) of The Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997?

On these words an offence is committed where a master fails to comply with a general direction or a special direction. Being served with a notice under the Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997 and doing nothing by the date it specifies. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Failure to comply with directions

Q: Is article 19(1) of The Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997 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 master meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

article 19(1) of The Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997

Status not determined
Strict liability
Summary only
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

1 The master of
a vessel who fails to comply with
a general direction or
a special direction shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
a fine not exceeding level
4 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 master
Conduct: failing to comply with a notice or direction
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 master 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 19(1)?

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.

On these words an offence is committed where a master fails to comply with a general direction or a special direction.
Being served with a notice under the Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine: £2,500
Standard scale: Level 4
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.

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.
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: 8 December 1997
In force from: 1 January 1998
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, made on the application of Portland Port Limited (“the Company”), establishes the Company as the statutory harbour authority for Portland Harbour in the place of the Queen’s Harbour Master for the Dockyard Port of Portland; defines the limits of jurisdiction of the Company and confers upon them powers of control, operation, management and regulation in relation to the harbour and the harbour premises. The Order provides for the development and for the safe and efficient operation of a commercial port; for harbour conservancy and maintenance; for the management and encouragement of recreation and commerce; and for the conservation of the natural beauty of the harbour and its flora and fauna.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

SCHEDULE 1SCHEDULE 1
SCHEDULE 1SCHEDULE 1
SCHEDULE 2SCHEDULE 2
Mooringsarticle 10(6)
Repair of landing places, etcarticle 11(3)
Repair of landing places, etcarticle 11(3)(a)
Power to grant permits in respect of certain pleasure craftarticle 12(5)
Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 3(2)
Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 3(3)
Restriction of works and dredgingarticle 31(4)
Lights on tidal worksarticle 37(2)
Provision against danger to navigationarticle 38(2)

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1997