UK Offence Report

Enforcement of maintenance order registered in United Kingdom court

paragraph 8 of SCHEDULE 2 of The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007

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 Any person for the time being under an obligation to make payments in pursuance of

a registered order shall give notice of any change of address to the appropriate officer of the registering court, and any person failing without reasonable excuse to give such

a notice shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

2 on the standard scale. 3A In subsection (3) above “appropriate officer” means—

a in relation to

a magistrates’ court in England and Wales, the designated officer for the court;

b in relation to

a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland, the collecting officer of the court, being the officer mentioned in Article 85(4) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; and

c in relation to

a court elsewhere, the clerk of the court.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

te officer of the registering court, and any person failing without reasonable excuse to give such a notice shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. 3A In subsection (3) above “appropriate officer” means— a in relation to a magistrates’ court in England and Wales, the designated officer for t

What would breach paragraph 8 of SCHEDULE 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 Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 2007.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Standard scale
Level 2
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

the level is stated but no money value is given: this instrument extends outside the United Kingdom, where the standard scale set by s.122(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 does not run.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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
25 July 2007
In force from
1 October 2007
Extent
S

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, by article 3, designates the United States of America (as defined in article 2) as a reciprocating country with the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. Article 4 of this Order applies Part 1 of the 1972 Act, as amended, to the reciprocal arrangement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America with the modifications set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 2 sets out Part I as so applied and modified. The principal modification effected by this Order is that a maintenance order made in the United States of America may not be varied or revoked in the United Kingdom and that a maintenance order made in the United Kingdom may not be varied or revoked in the United States of America (see sections 5 and 9 in Schedule 2). Under article 5, this Order applies to Scotland only in respect of the maintenance orders specified in that article. This Order comes into force on 1st October 2007. By virtue of article 6, the arrangement under S.I. 1995/2709 (as amended) between the United Kingdom and specified States of the United States of America as individual reciprocating territories continues in full force and effect for Part I matters commenced before 1st October 2007. The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) (Scotland) Order 2007 (S.S.I. 2007/354) provides for reciprocal enforcement between Scotland and the United States of America of maintenance orders other than those specified in article 5 of this Order.

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 0.72.

Basis
the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
Confidence
0.72 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