UK Offence Report

4 Where a limited partnership is guilty of an offence under these Regulations and that offence is proved to…

regulation 20(4) of The Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 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

4 Where a limited partnership is guilty of an offence under these Regulations and that offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or the connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 regulation 20(4)?

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 Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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 October 2006
In force from
1 January 2007
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations replace the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993, which require extensive amendment in consequence of changes made to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 by Council Regulation (EC) No. 793/2004. Regulation 3 provides that an airport formerly designated as coordinated or fully coordinated is to be treated as if it had been designated as, respectively, schedules facilitated or coordinated. It also implements Article 3(3) of the council regulation by requiring a capacity analysis to be conducted at other airports in specified circumstances. Regulation 4 implements Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the council regulation by requiring the appointment of schedules facilitators or coordinators and sets out the conditions to be complied with in respect of appointments. It provides that any person previously appointed as a coordinator for an airport formerly designated as coordinated shall be treated as if he had been appointed as a schedules facilitator for that airport. Similarly, any person previously appointed as a coordinator for an airport formerly designated as fully coordinated shall be treated as if he had been appointed as a coordinator for that airport. This regulation maintains existing criminal offences in respect of unauthorised persons who act in either capacity. Regulation 5 implements Article 5 of the council regulation by requiring the operators of coordinated airports to establish coordination committees. Regulation 6 implements Article 6(1) of the council regulation by requiring the operators of coordinated airports to determine slot allocation parameters biannually. Regulation 7 implements Article 7(1) of the council regulation by permitting a coordinator or a schedules facilitator to impose financial penalties on persons who fail to comply with their obligations under that Article to provide information. Breach of the original Article 7 was previously a criminal offence. Regulation 8 implements Article 8(5) of the council regulation by requiring the operators of coordinated airports and coordinators to notify the Secretary of State of local guidelines and rules which require to be notified to the European Commission. Regulation 9 maintains the existing criminal offence in respect of slot transfers which breach Article 8a of the council regulation. Regulation 10 implements Article 9(1) of the council regulation by requiring coordinators to comply with slot reservations made for the purpose of public service obligations. Regulation 11 implements Article 10(9) of the council regulation by requiring the operators of coordinated airports to convene a meeting of the local coordination committee in certain circumstances. Regulation 12 implements Article 11(2) of the council regulation by protecting coordinators and schedules facilitators from civil claims, except in cases of gross negligence or wilful default Regulation 13 implements Article 12(1) of the council regulation by requiring that coordinators and air carriers observe any measures that the Secretary of State is required to take by the European Commission. Regulation 14 implements Article 14(5) of the council regulation by prohibiting the misuse of slots at coordinated airports. The council regulation does not require an equivalent prohibition in the case of schedules facilitated airports. Regulation 15 gives power to a coordinator to issue directions in order to secure compliance with Regulation 14. Regulation 16 permits a coordinator to impose non-criminal sanctions in the form of financial penalties. Regulation 17 establishes an enforcement procedure with which a coordinator or schedules facilitator must comply. Regulation 18 obliges a coordinator or schedules facilitator to adopt an enforcement code and makes provision as to its content, amendment, revocation or modification. Regulation 19 makes provision for the appointment of an independent reviewer to whom enforcement decisions of a coordinator or schedules facilitator may be appealed. Regulation 20 maintains the existing penalties for existing criminal offences. Regulation 21 permits notices to be served either by traditional means or by electronic communications. Regulation 22 revokes the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993 and subsequent amending Regulations. A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business has been produced and a copy placed in the library of both Houses of Parliament. Copies may be obtained from the Department for Transport, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR. Alternatively, copies may be obtained from the Department for Transport’s website which is at www.dft.gov.uk.

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