False claim of status as creditor

article 9.18(1) of The Railway Administration Order Rules 2001

• Status not determined
• Requires proof of a state of mind
• Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and tax

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 Where the Rules provide for creditors of

a protected railway company

a right to inspect any documents, whether on the court’s file or in the hands of the special railway administrator or other person, it is an offence for

a person, with the intention of obtaining

a sight of documents which he has not under the Rules any right to inspect, falsely to claim

a status which would entitle him to inspect them.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 protected railway company

Conduct

breaching the provision

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 (with the intention of).

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: with the intention of.

What would breach article 9.18(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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001.

Penalty

Mode of trial

Not determined

Maximum fine

£5,000

Maximum prison (summary)

Not determined

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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.

• Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014

  Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.

• 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

6 October 2001

In force from

7 October 2001

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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

(This note does not form part of the Rules) These Rules set out the procedure for the conduct of railway administration proceedings for protected railway companies under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Railways Act 1993. They apply the relevant rules contained in the Insolvency Rules 1986 with modifications.

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.

• Railways Lords · 31 October 2001 · Lord Hunt of Wirral

  My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on initiating this important debate on the railway industry. We also all appreciated the noble Lord's passionate plea for stability, particularly in the longer-term, for this great industry. I found the noble Lord's reference to the whole procedure as having been a massive upheaval very interesting. How right he was to remind us all of the words used from time to…

• Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 Lords · 15 November 2001
• Insolvency Commons · 22 November 2001 · Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

  I beg to move, That the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3352), dated 6th October 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th October, be revoked. The order seeks to create a new form of insolvency. Although it is largely based on the insolvency legislation relating to the water industry, it purports to be something new. It is uncertain in its objectives and muddled in its…

• Insolvency Commons · 22 November 2001 · Mr. Winterton

  As ever, I am grateful for the courtesy that you show to hon. Members, especially to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. How will administration affect the investment that was planned and scheduled for the west coast main line? It is crucial to the economic potential and success of the north-west. How will the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 that we are considering tonight, albeit too briefly, affect the line? There…

Other offences in the same instrument

• Abstract of receipts and paymentsarticle 5.5(3)
• Abstract of receipts and paymentsarticle 5.5(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 0.90.

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 Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
• Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and taxOther offences on the same subject
• Offences created in 2001