UK Offence Report

Responsibilities relating to the satellite-tracking device

article 13(3) of The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2004 (revoked)

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

3 A person in charge of

a fishing boat in respect of which there is

a contravention of Article 19(3) of the Commission Regulation is guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

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 13(3)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2004, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
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.

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
7 December 2004
In force from
1 January 2005
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 provides for the enforcement in England of Commission Regulation (EC) 2244/2003 (OJ No L333, 20.12.03. p.17.) laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (“the Commission Regulation”). Articles 5 to 9 of the Order create offences for contravening requirements relating to: the installation of a satellite-tracking device (article 5); the switching off of a satellite-tracking device in port without prior notification (article 6); the information to be transmitted by the satellite-tracking device (article 7); the responsibilities relating to a satellite-tracking device (article 8) and the technical failure or non-functioning of a satellite-tracking device (article 9). Articles 11 to 14 apply to third country fishing boats within relevant British fishery limits. They create offences for contravening requirements relating to: the installation of a satellite-tracking device (article 11); the information to be transmitted by the satellite-tracking device (article 12); the responsibilities relating to the satellite-tracking device (article 13) and the technical failure or non-functioning of the satellite tracking device (article 14). The Order provides that the person guilty of an offence under it, other than an offence under article 19, is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine. The Order also provides for the recovery of fines imposed, or treated as imposed, by a magistrates' court (article 16). For the purposes of enforcing the Commission Regulation the Order confers on British sea-fishery officers the powers to: board fishing boats; test any equipment on board; require the production of documentation relating to the boat, equipment, or fishing or ancillary operations; search the boat; remove the satellite-tracking device or any other equipment on the boat; and take the boat to the nearest convenient port and detain the boat (article 17). Protection of such officers from liability is provided for in article 18. Failing to comply with requirements imposed by officers or obstructing them in the exercise of their powers is an offence under article 19, carrying liability to a fine up to the statutory maximum on summary conviction or a fine on conviction on indictment. Articles 20 and 21 deal with corporate and equivalent offences and admissibility of documents in evidence. Article 22 revokes the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order 2000 as it extends to England. A Regulatory Impact Assessment in relation to this Order has been prepared and placed in the library of each House of Parliament. Copies can be obtained from Defra, Fisheries Division IV, Room 313, Whitehall Place East, London, SW1A 2HH.

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 0.92.

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