UK Offence Report

Penalties

regulation 18(1) of The Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 A person shall be guilty of an offence if— a being a person mentioned in regulation 6(1), (2)(a) or (b), he fails without reasonable cause to report an accident as required by regulation 6, or b being a master or ship’s owner, he fails without reasonable cause to comply with regulation 6(5), or c being a person referred to in paragraph (a), he fails without reasonable cause to provide information as required by regulation 7(3), or d he falsely claims to have any additional information or new evidence pertaining to any accident or serious injury, and such a person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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 - 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: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses so far as is reasonably practicable, reasonably practicable; which element that governs was not determined.

What would breach regulation 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 Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2005-04-18); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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 Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 (revoked)
Revoked on
31 July 2012
Made
22 March 2005
In force from
18 April 2005
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 replace the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/2567). The 1999 Regulations have been revised to reflect the current working practices of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) of the Department for Transport and to align them, where possible, with practices applicable to the investigation of accidents in other transport modes. The main changes are: Definitions of “preliminary examination”, “senior surviving officer”, “United Kingdom waters” and “voyage data recorder” have been introduced and the definition of “pleasure vessel” has been modified to take account of the concept of civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 when it comes into force. (Regulation 2(1)). The MAIB’s main concern that safety lessons should be learned is reflected in modification of the regulation relating to the purpose of investigation, which now refers to the sole objective of the investigation of an accident being the prevention of future accidents, whilst recognizing that causes and circumstances will be established in the course of achieving the sole objective. (Regulation 5). The duty to report accidents has been expanded to fall upon the ship’s owner (including any manager) and senior surviving officer, as well as upon the master or skipper. In addition, a requirement has been introduced for harbour authorities and other responsible authorities, as well as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), to report accidents of which they are aware. (Regulation 6). The circumstances in which an investigation may be ordered have been modified specifically to exclude any loss of life resulting from suicide or natural causes, or any serious injury resulting from attempted suicide. The requirement for an investigation to be discontinued where the Secretary of State orders a formal investigation to be held has been removed. (Regulation 7). The duty to preserve evidence has been modified to fall upon the persons having a duty to report accidents under regulation 6. It has also been expanded to provide for the preservation of information from voyage data recorders and to allow a request to be made to personnel concerned with an overseas ship to comply with the requirements relating to the preservation of evidence following an accident in United Kingdom waters. A new power is provided for the Chief Inspector to require a ship to be accessible within United Kingdom waters if he considers this to be necessary for the collection or preservation of evidence and has reasonable grounds for concern that access to the ship or its crew would otherwise subsequently be denied. (Regulation 9). In relation to the conduct of investigations, inspectors have been provided with a new power to exclude any person who has been allowed by an inspector or nominated by a witness to be present at an oral examination if he is not a solicitor or other professional legal adviser acting solely on behalf of the witness and they have substantial reason to believe that the person’s presence would hamper the investigation. Such an exclusion must be sanctioned by the Chief Inspector. If a nominated person is excluded, the witness may nominate an alternative person to be present. Provision has also been made for the Chief Inspector to decide, following a preliminary examination, whether or not a full investigation leading to a published report should take place. (Regulation 10). The regulation relating to disclosure of records has been modified to increase the range of documents or records that may be made available without a Court order and to enable a witness to disclose his own declaration as he sees fit. A new provision has been inserted to ensure that an order is made only where the Court is satisfied that the interests of justice in disclosure outweigh any prejudice to accident investigation or to the United Kingdom’s external relations. Provision is also made for the Chief Inspector, at his discretion, to share certain information or data with the police or other official authorities. (Regulation 12). In relation to investigations which proceed beyond the preliminary examination stage, provision is made about the facts and matters to be set out, including recommendations for future safety. The categories of persons or bodies to whom the Chief Inspector shall send a copy of a published report are expanded. The provision enabling the Secretary of State to direct that a report should not be made publicly available, or that deletions should be made, on grounds of national security, has been removed. Restrictions are imposed on the disclosure, without the Chief Inspector’s consent, of information which has been provided in a draft report or otherwise in advance of publication. A new provision has been added to make a report inadmissible in civil or criminal judicial proceedings unless a court orders otherwise. (Regulation 13). New provision is made introducing a duty upon anyone to whom a recommendation is addressed to consider it and to provide to the Chief Inspector, within 28 days, details of any implementing action or to explain why none has been taken, and allowing the Chief Inspector to publish information concerning these matters. (Regulation 15). In relation to the service of documents, provision is made to allow for service by e-mail. (Regulation 17). The Regulations create new offences whereby it will be an offence for harbour authorities and inland waterway authorities to fail without reasonable cause to report accidents of which they are aware, or to provide any information required by the Chief Inspector under regulation 7. It will also be an offence for any person to fail without reasonable cause to comply with a prohibition of access to, or interference with, any ship involved in an accident, or with a requirement to ensure that a ship is accessible in United Kingdom waters for the collection or preservation of evidence. (Regulation 18). A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared and copies can be obtained from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Carlton House, Carlton Place, Southampton SO15 2DZ. A copy has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament. Copies of the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents may be obtained from the International Maritime Organization at 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR.

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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
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