UK Offence Report

Contravention of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Jersey) Order 2000

the instrument as a whole of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Jersey) Order 2000

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

Contravening this instrument is an offence under section

61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The instrument itself contains no offence-creating words.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Not determined

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.

Classifier’s reasoning: contravention offences of this kind are strict as to the breach; the fault position is governed by the parent Act and was not read from it.

What would breach the instrument as a whole?

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 Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) (Jersey) Order 2000.

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 61 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

the penalty is in the parent Act, not 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
Status not determined
Made
17 May 2000
In force from
1 June 2000
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 revokes and replaces the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) (Jersey) Order 1975 (S.I. 1975/1516) (“the 1975 Order”). It applies to Jersey provisions which correspond to those of the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/2798) with appropriate modifications and amendments and, in particular, gives effect to amendments made to Annex 13 of the Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944) (“the Chicago Convention”). The principal changes from the 1975 Order are– a the expression “accident” is defined more narrowly; it no longer includes an incident (article 2(1)); b the preclusion of the removal of damaged aircraft is extended to any case where the aircraft is withdrawn from service as a result of a serious incident (article 7(1)); c the Bailiff is empowered to appoint a Chief Inspector and Inspectors of Air Accidents for Jersey from the Inspectors of Air Accidents of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of the United Kingdom (article 8); d accidents and serious incidents which occur in or over Jersey must be investigated (article 8(3)); e the procedure to be followed is as determined by the Chief Inspector (article 10); f the provisions relating to review boards and to public inquiries are omitted; g where the accident or incident involves a collision between a civil aircraft and a military aircraft the investigation excludes matters affecting discipline or internal administration of Her Majesty’s armed forces or the armed forces of another country more appropriately undertaken by those forces (article 11(2)); h safety recommendations included in a report are not to create a presumption of blame or liability (article 11(5)); i the Inspector’s report of an investigation into an accident or incident must be published (article 13); j any undertaking or authority to whom a safety recommendation contained in a report is addressed must take that recommendation into consideration and advise the Harbours and Airport Committee of the States of Jersey of the measures taken or intended to be taken to implement it or the reasons why it is not to be implemented by that body (article 14); k the preclusion of the disclosure of certain records for purposes other than accident or incident investigation save where the court otherwise orders (article 18). A copy of the eighth edition of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention can be obtained from the CAA, Printing and Publications Service, Greville House, 37 Gratton Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 2BN.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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 0.55.

Basis
the penalty comes from the enabling Act rather than from this instrument
Confidence
0.55 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