UK Offence Report

Removal of obstructions

article 48(4) of The Nottingham Express Transit System Order 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

4 A person who, wilfully and without lawful excuse—

a interferes with or removes the authorised tramway or any part of the authorised tramway or the works connected with it;

b places or throws materials or objects of any kind on any part of the authorised tramway; or

c does anything which obstructs any tramcar using the authorised tramway, whether or not such obstruction endangers the lives of any person in the tramcar, shall be guilty of an offence and 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 (wilfully).

“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: wilfully; qualified by lawful excuse (an element).

The defence, as drafted

4 A person who, wilfully and without lawful excuse— a interferes with or removes the authorised tramway or any part of the authorised tramway or the works connected with it; b places or throws materials or objects of any kind on any part of the authorised tramway; or c does anything which obstructs any tramca

What would breach article 48(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Nottingham Express Transit System Order 2009.
  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.

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
19 May 2009
In force from
9 June 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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order authorises Nottingham City Council and The Nottinghamshire County Council (referred to in this Order as the promoter) to construct and operate two extensions to the existing tram system (known as NET Line One) running between Nottingham City Centre and Hucknall, one running from the City Centre to Clifton via Wilford and the other running from the City Centre to Chilwell via the Queen’s Medical Centre and Beeston and, for that purpose, compulsorily or by agreement, to acquire land and rights in land and to use land. It contains a number of protective provisions for the benefit of affected undertakings. This Order also makes provision in connection with the operation and maintenance of NET Line One and accordingly provides for the repeal of provisions in the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act 1994 by which the construction, operation and maintenance of NET Line One was authorised. A copy of the works and land plans, the open space and exchange land plans, the book of reference and the traffic regulation and rights of way plans mentioned in this Order and certified in accordance with article 79 (certification of plans, etc.) of this Order, may be inspected free of charge during working hours at the offices of Nottingham City Council at Exchange Buildings North, 2nd Floor, Smithy Row, Nottingham NG1 2BS and at the offices of The Nottinghamshire County Council at County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2; 7QP.

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”
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