UK Offence Report

Notice of change of address to Levy Board

article 4(1) of The Deregulation (Betting Licensing) 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

1 After paragraph

25 of Schedule

1 to the 1963 Act there shall be inserted— Notification of change of relevant premises during currency of permit 25A If during the currency of

a bookmaker’s permit there is any change in the address of the relevant premises, the holder of the permit shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the change occurs give notice in writing of the change of address to the Levy Board; and if the holder of the permit fails to comply with this paragraph he shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

1 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 holder
Conduct
failing to do something the instrument requires
Fault element
Objective fault
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened and that it fell below the standard the provision sets. That is an objective test - what a reasonable person in the same position would have done, not what this defendant actually thought.

What a holder personally believed or intended is not the question; the standard is what was reasonable.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: objective standard in the offence-creating words: reasonably practicable.

What would breach article 4(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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Deregulation (Betting Licensing) Order 1997, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£200
Standard scale
Level 1
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
16 March 1997
In force from
1 September 1997
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, which is made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, amends various provisions in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (“the 1963 Act”) relating to the licensing of betting offices and permits for bookmakers and betting agencies, in order to reduce the burden on businesses operating in the betting industry. Article 3 of the Order enables a clerk to a committee responsible for the grant and renewal of licences and permits under Schedule 1 to the 1963 Act to act for the committee when applications for the renewal of such licences and permits are unopposed. Article 6 extends the duration of such licences and permits to three years. They currently require annual renewal. To compensate for these deregulatory measures, article 2 enables a court to order the cancellation and forfeiture of a betting office licence held by a person convicted of managing a betting office in contravention of the rules set out in Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act. Article 4 requires the holder of a bookmaker’s permit to notify the Horserace Betting Levy Board of a change of his office address. Article 5 makes new provision for the cancellation of betting office licences. In consequence of article 6, article 7 replaces the requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament annual reports containing statistical information with respect to bookmakers’ permits, betting agency permits and betting office licences, with a requirement to lay such reports every three years.

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.

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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence
0.72 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