UK Offence Report

Directions and determination of preliminary issues

regulation 21(4) of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (General Provisions and Disability Claims Procedure) Regulations 2002

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

4 A direction shall—

a include

a statement of the possible consequences for the claim, as provided by regulation 25, of

a party’s failure to comply with the requirement within the time allowed by the President;

b if made under regulation 24(2), contain

a reference to the fact that, under section 28J(9)(a) of the 1995 Act, any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with requirements regarding disclosure or inspection of documents shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale; and

c unless the person to whom the direction is addressed had an opportunity to object to the direction, or he gave his written consent to the application for it, contain

a statement to the effect that that person may apply to the President under regulation

22 to vary or set aside the direction.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
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).

The defence, as drafted

at, under section 28J(9)(a) of the 1995 Act, any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with requirements regarding disclosure or inspection of documents shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and c unless the person to whom the direction is addressed had an opportunity to obj

What would breach regulation 21(4)?

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 person without reasonable excuse fails to comply with requirements regarding disclosure or inspection of documents.
  2. Being served with a notice under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (General Provisions and Disability Claims Procedure) Regulations 2002 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2012
Revoked on
6 March 2012
Made
24 July 2002
In force from
1 September 2002
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations contain general provisions relating to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (the Tribunal) and also deal with the procedures of the Tribunal for claims of disability discrimination in schools. The general provisions relate to the exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Chapter 1 of Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Part IV of the Education Act 1996. The Regulations make provision for: a the appointment of members of the lay panel by the Secretary of State (regulation 3); b the establishment of individual tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (regulation 4); c the selection of Tribunal members for hearings (regulation 5); d proof of documents (regulation 6). These Regulations also contain provisions in relation to the making of claims of disability discrimination in schools, under Chapter 1 of Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and with the procedures of the Tribunal for the purpose of determining those claims. The procedures are set out in Parts II to V of the Regulations and broadly follow, with modification, the Tribunal’s procedures for special educational needs appeals under Part IV of the Education Act 1996, which are contained in the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/600). Regulation 27 prescribes the circumstances in which a disability discrimination claim may be heard with a special educational needs appeal.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same 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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence
0.72 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