UK Offence Report

Penalties

regulation 14(1) of The Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 A person who issues

a certificate purporting to comply with regulation 7(4) which contains

a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in

a material particular, or who recklessly issues

a certificate purporting to comply with regulation 7(4) which contains

a statement which is false or misleading in

a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 person
Conduct
making a false or misleading statement
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

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

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: recklessly.

What would breach regulation 14(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. On these words an offence is committed where a person recklessly issues a certificate purporting to comply with regulation 7(4) which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.
  2. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.
  3. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  4. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
Revoked on
24 June 2007
Made
21 December 1999
In force from
1 February 2000
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations implement, for Great Britain, Council Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC) in the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in respect of certain harbour works. Except for applications relating to harbour works made prior to 1st February 2000, Part II of these Regulations replaces the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1989 and amendments to them made by the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (Amendment) Regulations 1996. Similarly, except for applications for harbour revision orders or harbour empowerment orders made prior to 1st February 2000, Part III introduces Schedule 3 which replaces Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 as amended. In Part II, regulation 4 provides for a developer who is minded to make an application relating to harbour works to be able to obtain a prior opinion on the information to be supplied in an environmental statement. Regulations 5 and 6 provide for two different procedures on such an application, depending on whether or not a prior opinion has been obtained. Regulation 7 provides for publication of notices by the developer, and regulation 8 provides for the involvement of other EEA States in transboundary cases. There is provision for consultations and inquiries (regulation 9), the making of decisions on applications (regulation 10), the procedure where harbour works are carried out without a decision having been made (regulation 11), variation of consents (regulation 12), enforcement (regulation 13) and penalties (regulation 14). In Part III, sections 17 and 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 are amended and Schedule 3 is introduced to replace Schedule 3 to that Act (regulation 15(4)). The following are the main amendments necessitated by the amending Directive which have been made to the existing Schedule 3. Paragraph 4 of the new Schedule 3 provides for the Secretary of State to take into account the selection criteria (which are defined as the criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive) when deciding whether a project which appears to him to fall within Annex II to the Directive constitutes a “relevant project” as defined and an environmental assessment is therefore required. Paragraph 6(2) provides for the Secretary of State to give an opinion on the extent of the information which he considers would be required in an environmental statement. The environmental statement to be supplied on an application for a harbour revision order must contain an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects (paragraph 8(2)). The notice to be published in the Gazette by the applicant must state the Secretary of State’s decision on whether the application relates to a project which falls within Annex I to the Directive or within Annex II and is a relevant project, and state his reasons if he decides it does constitute such a project (paragraph 10(2)(b)). Paragraph 16 provides for the involvement of other EEA States in transboundary cases. Paragraph 20 expands the requirements for publicity of the Secretary of State’s decision on an application. Regulation 15(5) introduces Schedule 4, which sets out amendments consequent upon the replacement of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 by the Schedule set out in Schedule 3 to these Regulations. A regulatory impact assessment is not required as the changes introduced by these Regulations will not impose any additional costs or savings and will have a negligible impact on business.

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