What would breach article 60(2) of The Air Navigation Order 2000?

Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Air Navigation Order 2000, whatever the reason for doing it. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Carriage of dangerous goods

Q: Is article 60(2) of The Air Navigation Order 2000 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 person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

article 60(2) of The Air Navigation Order 2000

Status not determined
Strict liability
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

2 It shall be an offence to contravene or permit the contravention of or fail to comply with any regulations made hereunder.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: contravening a requirement of the instrument
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 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.

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 60(2)?

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.

Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Air Navigation Order 2000, whatever the reason for doing it.
Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Not determined
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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.

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: 14 June 2000
In force from: 19 July 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 Order consolidates the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, as amended. In addition to some minor drafting amendments the following new provisions are added. An aircraft may not fly within airspace notified as reduced vertical separation minimum airspace unless it is equipped with appropriate height keeping equipment which, in the case of United Kingdom registered aircraft, must be installed, maintained and operated in a manner approved by the Civil Aviation Authority (articles 48, 49 and 129). Aeroplanes registered in the United Kingdom that are powered by one or more turbine jets or by one or more turbine propeller engines must be equipped with a terrain awareness and warning system: by 1 January 2001 if first issued with a certificate of airworthiness on or after that date, operating for the purpose of public transport, and weighing more than 15,000 kg or certified to carry more than 30 passengers; by 1 October 2001 if weighing more than 5,700 kg or certified to carry more than 9 passengers, whether or not flying for the purpose of public transport if not equipped with a ground proximity warning system before 1 April 2000; by 1 January 2005 if weighing more than 5,700 kg or certified to carry more than 9 passengers, whether or not operating for the purpose of public transport if equipped with a ground proximity warning system before 1 April 2000. Aeroplanes operated under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate are not affected by this requirement. (Schedule 4). A helicopter registered in the United Kingdom and weighing 5,700 kg or less which is flying for the purpose of public transport either in instrument meteorological conditions or at night with visual ground reference, must carry either two pilots or one pilot and an autopilot. A helicopter flying for the purpose of public transport at night with visual ground reference must be appropriately equipped depending on whether it is flying with one or two pilots. Every pilot included in the flight crew of a helicopter flying for the purpose of public transport whose licence does not include an instrument rating but who is intended to fly at night under visual flight conditions must be tested by the operator as to his competence (article 20 and Schedules 4 and 10). All provisions other than Articles 27(2), 122 and 134 rely on the domestic powers.

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.

Transport Bill Lords · 26 October 2000 · Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, if one wishes to throw the issue open so widely, it would cause concerns that we need not address in this Bill. It has never seemed appropriate in the past to consider parachutists. I do not know whether it has suddenly come as an insight to the noble Viscount, but it is not an issue to which we have addressed much attention in the past, nor do I intend to do so today. I can tell the House that the CAA…
Light Aircraft Insurance And Regulation Commons · 8 May 2001 · Mr. Hill
It certainly was his decision, and it is a matter of the pilot's judgment. However, I want to explain the conditions, which are clearly laid down in law, that may guide the pilot's judgment in those circumstances. The only way for provision to be made for compensation to be paid when such uninsured losses occur would be for the industry to introduce a scheme similar to that established for road vehicles, by the…
Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Bill Lords · 3 December 2001 · The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
The question went beyond me. Do I take the same provisions to apply to fines as to imprisonment? The reason we are increasing the level of fines from what it was prior to the passing of the Act to what is proposed in the Bill is that we do not think a level 1 fine adequately conveys the concerns that we have on the issue; it would not be proportionate to the offence; and it would be unlikely to act as a deterrent.…
Aviation (Offences) Bill Lords · 13 June 2003 · Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the Government take very seriously the problem of disruptive passenger behaviour on aircraft. It became a matter of increased public concern when there was a serious incident in 1998: a stewardess was attacked and injured on board a UK aircraft. After that incident—which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will remember—the Government took action in two ways. First, we set up a disruptive…

Other offences in the same instrument

Penaltiesarticle 122(4)
Penaltiesarticle 122(5)
Penaltiesarticle 122(6)
Rules of the Airarticle 84(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 0.90.

Basis: the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence: 0.90 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 Air Navigation Order 2000 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Transport: maritime, aviation, rail and harboursOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 2000