UK Offence Report

SCHEDULE 1

SCHEDULE 1 of The Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997

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

Penalties 60 1 Any person who contravenes or otherwise fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Schedule, or any condition, requirement or prohibition imposed by the Company or the harbour master in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them or him by this Schedule, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction— a to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale in the case of an offence under paragraph 40 above; b to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale in any other case.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (intentionally, knowingly) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no fault word in the offence-creating words, but the surrounding provision uses knowingly, intentionally, reasonably practicable, without due care - which element it governs was not determined; qualified by absence of consent (an element).

The defence, as drafted

n. 3 In any proceedings for an offence under this Schedule, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove— a that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence; or b that he had a reasonable excuse for his act or failure to act. 4 If, in any case, the defence provided by sub-paragraph (3)(a) above in

What would breach SCHEDULE 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.

  1. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Portland Harbour Revision Order 1997.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

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.

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 note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

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

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