Obstruction of officers

article 48(1) of The London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008

• Status not determined
• Requires proof of a state of mind
• Summary only
• Housing, planning, heritage and land

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

1 Any person who—

a intentionally obstructs an officer of the Harbour Authority who is acting in pursuance of this Order;

b without reasonable excuse fails to comply with

a requirement properly made by such an officer; or

c without reasonable excuse fails to give such an officer any information or produce any document which he may require for the purpose of performance of his functions, shall be 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

rbour Authority who is acting in pursuance of this Order; b without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement properly made by such an officer; or c without reasonable excuse fails to give such an officer any information or produce any document which he may require for the purpose of performance of his functions, shall be liable on

What would breach article 48(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008.
2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
3. 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.

• Environmental offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 July 2014

  Covers unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste, illegal discharges to air, land and water, and the equivalent offences committed by organisations. It is the guideline that introduced turnover bands for corporate fines, so the size of the defendant company is a starting point rather than a mitigating detail.

• Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017

  The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.

• General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019

  The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.

• Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales

  How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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

2 May 2008

In force from

16 May 2008

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 the construction and use of a new port at Shell Haven, Stanford-le-Hope, Thurrock in the County of Essex. This Order also establishes a new Harbour Authority for the port. A copy of the deposited plans and the deposited sections and the relevant charts mentioned in this Order may be inspected free of charge during working hours at the offices of London Gateway Port Limited at The Manorway, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, SS17 9PD.

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.

• Planning Bill Lords · 10 November 2008 · Lord Berkeley

  My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 121A to 121G and 121J in this group, which cover what we might call the other end of the spectrum from the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Dixon-Smith, on the subject of by-laws and what is and is not included. It would be helpful if I divided my remarks into three groups. The first refers to Amendments Nos. 121A, 121B and 121G, which refer…

• Localism Bill Lords · 19 July 2011 · Lord Boyd of Duncansby

  My name is also associated with Amendment 166U. At one stage, I had thought that I had put my name to one or two of the other amendments and it indeed appeared in earlier versions of the Marshalled List. However, for some reason my name seems to have been disassociated with those amendments. Nevertheless, I support the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I emphasise the need for a seamless…

• Localism Bill Lords · 17 October 2011 · Lord Boyd of Duncansby

  My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on Report, so I repeat my declaration of interest: I am a solicitor in private practice and registered as a foreign lawyer in England and Wales, and some of my practice involves planning. I recollect that in Committee I stood to support amendments in terms very similar to those before the House this evening. I cannot now recollect in whose names the amendments…

• Access to Ports Commons · 27 March 2014 · Stephen Hammond

  “Finally” in terms of the point about sulphur. There is so much to tackle on this fascinating subject that I must disappoint hon. Members. I probably have at least another five minutes yet to go, and perhaps more. The Government’s position has been clear. We have sought to challenge the regulations, but we are now ensuring that we work with the whole industry to mitigate the cost to industry. Therefore, I—or my…

Other offences in the same instrument

• Fine for obstructing worksarticle 15(1)
• Provision against danger to navigationarticle 17(2)
• Incorporation of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847article 3(2)
• Obstruction of officersarticle 48(2)

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

• This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
• The London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
• Housing, planning, heritage and landOther offences on the same subject
• Offences created in 2008