UK Offence Report

Fine for obstructing works

article 7 of The Associated British Ports (Hull) Harbour Revision Order 2006

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

Ports in constructing the works or who intentionally or recklessly interferes with equipment or materials used in the construction of the works shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally, recklessly).

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

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally, recklessly.

What would breach article 7?

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 intentionally or recklessly interferes with equipment or materials used in the construction of the works.
  2. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Associated British Ports (Hull) Harbour Revision Order 2006.
  3. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  4. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

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
Status not determined
Made
13 April 2006
In force from
25 April 2006
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 authorises Associated British Ports to construct and maintain a new quay on the River Humber adjoining Alexandra Dock and confers ancillary powers in connection with the works including powers for dredging; for extending the limits of jurisdiction of the Dock Master; and for removing the existing pier. The Order also authorises the diversion of the riverside footpath during the construction of the works and the stopping up and substitution of a part of it with a footbridge and provides for the repeal of enactments relating to the existing pier. The deposited plan and sections defined in article 2 of the Order may be inspected during normal hours at the offices of Associated British Ports at 150 Holborn, London EC1N 2LR and at Port House, Northern Gateway, King George Dock, Hull HU9 5PQ.

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