UK Offence Report

SCHEDULE 2

SCHEDULE 2 of The Croydon Tramlink (Penalty Fares) Order 2003

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 A person failing to give his name and address when required to do so under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

2 on the standard scale.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 do something the instrument requires
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (with intent to) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no fault word in the offence-creating words, but the surrounding provision uses with intent to - which element it governs was not determined.

What would breach SCHEDULE 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.

  1. Not doing what the provision requires under the Croydon Tramlink (Penalty Fares) Order 2003, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£500
Standard scale
Level 2
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
Status not determined
Made
20 June 2003
In force from
15 July 2003
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.

The London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992, which provides for a system of penalty fares on the services of London Regional Transport, was applied with modifications to the Croydon Tramlink by the Croydon Tramlink (Penalty Fares) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/476) (“the 2000 Order”). Schedule 17 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (“Schedule 17”), however, provides for the repeal of the 1992 Act and its replacement by similar provisions applying to the services of Transport for London. Article 2(1) applies Schedule 17 to tram services provided on the Croydon Tramlink subject to the modifications in Schedule 1. The modifications are, by virtue of article 2(2) to be treated as if they were included in an Order made by the Mayor of London under paragraph 9 of Schedule 17. In consequence of article 2, Article 3 revokes the 2000 Order and repeals section 45 of the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 under which it was made. Article 4 introduces Schedule 2 which sets out the text of Schedule 17 as modified by this Order in relation to the Tramlink.

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 0.92.

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