UK Offence Report

Amendment of the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous or Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 1996

regulation 5(a) of The Merchant Shipping (Implementation of Ship-Source Pollution Directive) Regulations 2009

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

a before paragraph (1A) insert— 1ZA If any noxious liquid substance is discharged from

a ship in contravention of regulation 5(a), then section 131(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 shall apply as it applies to an offence under that section, so that any person who causes or contributes to that discharge is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by

a fine not exceeding £25,000 or on conviction on indictment by

a fine. ;

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach regulation 5(a)?

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 causes or contributes to that discharge.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Merchant Shipping (Implementation of Ship-Source Pollution Directive) Regulations 2009, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£25,000
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
11 May 2009
In force from
1 July 2009
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 implement Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7th September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (O.J. No. L 255, 30.9.2005, p.11). That Directive incorporates certain provisions of Annexes I and II to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as amended by its Protocol of 1978 (“MARPOL 73/78”) into Community law. Regulation 3 amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to limit the provisions of section 131 regarding discharges of oil or a mixture containing oil into certain types of water that are not sea. Regulation 6 contains a transitional provision in relation to the amendments set out in regulation 3. Regulation 4 makes amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. The principal change is to insert new regulations 11A to 11C excepting from the prohibitions in regulations 12, 13 and 16 discharges of oil into the sea arising from damage to a ship or its equipment in certain circumstances. This removes existing defences in relation to certain discharges in those waters and introduces, in line with the Directive, new defences for those discharges which have a more limited range. Regulation 5 amends the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous or Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 1996 to provide that penalties may be imposed on any person who causes or contributes to a prohibited discharge under certain circumstances. A full impact assessment of the effect that the instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector has been prepared. A Transposition Note which sets out how Directive 2005/35/EC is to be transposed into UK law has also been prepared. Both documents are available from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton SO15 1EG and are annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the OPSI website (www.opsi.gov.uk). Copies of each document have been placed in the library of each House of Parliament. Copies of MARPOL 73/78 may be obtained from the International Maritime Organization at 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR.

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 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”; the provision says the conduct is “punishable”
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