UK Offence Report

Amendments to Schedule 8 to the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994

article 3(6) of The Insolvent Partnerships (Amendment) Order 2001

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

Section 14: Offences by body corporate 14 1 Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence of acting in contravention of a disqualification order or disqualification undertaking and it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 body corporate
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 body corporate 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 3(6)?

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 body corporate was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Insolvent Partnerships (Amendment) Order 2001, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
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.

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
1 March 2001
In force from
2 April 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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order amends the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/2421) (the “1994 Order”). It provides that sections 1, 1A, 8A, 13, 14 and 17, in addition to those sections of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c. 46) (the “CDDA”) already applied, are applied to insolvent partnerships, with modifications, where appropriate, as set out in Schedule 8 of the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994, by virtue of the amendment of article 16 of, and Schedule 8 to, the 1994 Order. Article 2 amends article 16 of the 1994 Order. The amendment applies sections 1, 1A,8A, 13, 14 and 17 of the CDDA to insolvent partnerships. Section 1A of the CDDA (together with the amendments to sections 6, 7, and 8 of the CDDA) provides for the new disqualification undertaking provisions introduced by the Insolvency Act 2000 (c. 39). These provisions allow the Secretary of State to accept a disqualification undertaking from a person who is or has been an officer of a partnership where an insolvent partnership is wound up as an unregistered company. Article 3 amends Schedule 8 to the 1994 Order. Article 3(2) provides for an amended definition of the court to which an application for a disqualification order is to be made. Article 3(3) inserts section 7(2A) of the CDDA which allows the Secretary of State to accept a disqualification undertaking if the conditions mentioned in section 6(1) of the CDDA are satisfied and makes minor amendments to section 7 of the CDDA, as applied by the 1994 Order. Article 3(4) inserts section 8(2A) of the CDDA (as modified) which allows the Secretary of State to accept disqualification undertakings under section 8 of the CDDA. Article 3(5) inserts section 9(1A) of the CDDA (as modified) which provides that the Secretary of State in determining whether he may accept a disqualification undertaking must have regard to the matters in Schedule 1 to the CDDA and makes minor amendments to section 9 of the CDDA, as applied by the 1994 Order. Article 3(6) modifies sections 13, 14, 15 and 17 of the CDDA in their application to insolvent partnerships.

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 0.64.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.64 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