UK Offence Report

Offences in connection with reporting

article 11(2) of The Courts-Martial (Prosecution Appeals) 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

2 Where the publication is

a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
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 11(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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Courts-Martial (Prosecution Appeals) Order 2006.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ 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 (2006-07-05); 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
Status not determined
Made
5 July 2006
In force from
5 July 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 makes provision, in relating to trials by court-martial, equivalent to the new prosecution right of appeal under Part 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). The power for the Secretary of State to make such equivalent provision in consequence of criminal justice enactments derives from section 31 of the Armed Forces Act 2001. Article 3 establishes the right of appeal for the prosecution in relation to a trial by court-martial and provides that such an appeal, subject to the granting of leave, lies to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. Article 4 makes provision, equivalent to the general right of appeal in section 58 of the 2003 Act, establishing a right of appeal for the prosecution against a ruling of a judge advocate at Court-Martial which either is terminating of itself, or which would otherwise have the effect of terminating proceedings in that the prosecution would offer no, or no further, evidence. Article 5 makes provision, equivalent to that in section 59 of the 2003 Act, in relation to appeals following either an expedited or a non-expedited route. Article 6 allows for proceedings to continue in respect of any charge which is not the subject of an appeal. Article 7 establishes powers for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to confirm, reverse or vary any ruling to which the appeal relates equivalent to those in section 61 of the 2003 Act. Article 8 mirrors the legal test that must be met before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court may reverse a ruling from a judge advocate at a court-martial. Article 9 amends provisions of the Courts-Martial Appeal Act 1968 so as to provide for a right of appeal to lie to the House of Lords against any decision of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court in relation to an appeal under this Order and to mirror the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in relation to the granting of bail to an accused who has so appealed to the House of Lords. Articles 10 and 11 make provision equivalent to sections 71 and 72 of the 2003 Act in relation to restrictions on reporting of appeals under this Order, and associated offences for contravention of reporting restrictions. Finally, article 12 sets out certain miscellaneous and supplemental provisions in relation to the general application of the right of appeal under the Order. Provision for Rules of Court is not made within this Order as separate provision is made in consequence of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 by virtue of the power conferred on the Secretary of State in section 31(3)(c) of the Armed Forces Act 2001.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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