Obstruction etc
article 9 of The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2000
- Revoked
- Strict liability
- Either way
- Health and safety, environment, waste and fisheries
The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.
What the provision says
9 Any person who— a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed by a British sea-fishery officer under the powers conferred on him by virtue of article 7 of this Order; b without reasonable excuse prevents any other person from complying with any such requirement; or c obstructs any such officer who is exercising any of those powers, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable— i on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; ii on conviction on indictment to a fine.
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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
- Strict liability
- Burden of proof
- An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove
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.
“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).
Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised); other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).
The defence, as drafted
9 Any person who— a fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed by a British sea-fishery officer under the powers conferred on him by virtue of article 7 of this Order; b without reasonable excuse prevents any other person from complying with any such requirement; or c obstructs any
What would breach article 9?
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.
- Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2000.
- Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
- Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.
Penalty
- Mode of trial
- Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
- Maximum fine
- Unlimited
- Maximum prison (summary)
- Not determined
'to a fine' with no stated maximum.
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.
-
Environmental offences: definitive guideline
Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2014
Covers unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste, illegal discharges to air, land and water, and the equivalent offences committed by organisations. It is the guideline that introduced turnover bands for corporate fines, so the size of the defendant company is a starting point rather than a mitigating detail.
-
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.
-
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline
All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
-
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
- Revoked
- Revoked by
- The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005
- Revoked on
- 14 November 2005
- Made
- 30 January 2000
- In force from
- 21 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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.
This Order provides for the enforcement of Articles 3 and 28c of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy and Commission Regulation (EC) 1489/97 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 as regards satellite-based vessel monitoring systems. Those Regulations provide for the transmission via satellite of vessel identification and location reports by fishing boats measuring more than 20 metres between perpendiculars or more than 24 metres in overall length. Article 3 of the Order is the principal provision giving effect to these requirements. The Order creates offences in respect of breaches of the provisions referred to in article 4 of this Order, including breaches of articles 6.1 and 6.2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1489/97. Articles 6.1 and 6.2 require the required information (as defined in article 2(1) of the Order) to be sent to the flag Member State and the concerned coastal Member State by alternative means, at least every 24 hours, in the event of a technical failure or non-function of either a satellite tracking device installed on a fishing boat or the vessel monitoring system of the flag Member State. Also, in the event of a technical failure or non-function of a satellite tracking device the owner is required to have it repaired or replaced within one month or, where such event occurs during a fishing trip that lasts for more than one month, as soon as the fishing boat enters a port. The master of the fishing boat is not authorised to commence a new fishing trip until the satellite tracking device has been repaired or so replaced. Penalties for contravention of the provisions referred to in article 4 of this Order are to be found in article 5 of the Order. For the purpose of enforcing this Order British sea-fishery officers are given powers to board fishing boats, to search, examine and test the equipment of the boat, to require the production of documents and to take the boat to the nearest convenient port (article 7). Provision is also made for the prosecution of offences of changing the identification of a satellite tracking device installed on a fishing boat or removing the device from the boat without prior authorisation (article 4(3)), interfering with transmissions from the device or knowingly furnishing false information (article 4(4)), and obstruction of British sea-fishery officers (article 9). Penalties following conviction are set out in article 5(2) and 9. The statutory maximum penalty specified in the Order is currently £5,000. The Order provides powers for the recovery of fines imposed by a magistrate’s court in England or Northern Ireland (article 6). Articles 8, 10 and 11 contain ancillary provisions. The Order does not form part of the law of Scotland. It does not apply in relation to fishing activities within the territorial sea of Wales. The Regulatory Impact Assessment in relation to the application of the satellite-based vessel monitoring system to UK fishing boats has been prepared and placed in the library of each House of Parliament. Copies can be obtained from Fisheries Division IV of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Room 420, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.
Read the full note and every offence in this instrument
Other offences in the same instrument
- Where there is a contravention of, or failure to comply with— a any provision of article 3 of this Order, or…article 4(1)
- Any person who in any way— a changes, substitutes or replicates the identification of a satellite tracking…article 4(3)
- In relation to any fishing boat to which article 3 of this Order applies, any person who in any way— a…article 4(4)
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
- This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
- The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2000 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- Health and safety, environment, waste and fisheriesOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 2000