UK Offence Report

Removal of, or interference with, an immobilisation notice or device

regulation 5(3) of The Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) (Amendment) 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

3 For paragraph (3) substitute—

3 A person who removes or attempts to remove, otherwise than in accordance with paragraph (1A), an immobilisation device fixed to

a vehicle in accordance with regulation 5(2), is guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 5(3)?

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 removes or attempts to remove, otherwise than in accordance with paragraph (1A), an immobilisation device fixed to a vehicle in accordance with regulation 5(2).
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2009.

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
16 July 2009
In force from
1 October 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 amend the Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 (“the 2001 Regulations”) (S.I. 2001/3981). Those Regulations, made under Schedule 1A to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), introduced a statutory regime whereby a goods vehicle which is being, or has been, used on a road in contravention of the licensing requirements in section 2 of that Act may be detained. The Local Transport Act 2008 inserted a new Schedule 2A into the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to enable a similar regime to be established in respect of public service vehicles (“PSVs”) adapted to carry more than eight passengers. Regulations made under that Schedule come into force on the same day as these Regulations. These Regulations amend the 2001 Regulations so as provide consistency with the regime established in respect of PSVs. In particular, section 126 of the Local Transport Act 2008 substitutes paragraph 8 in Schedule 1A to the 1995 Act to provide that Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a detained vehicle may be returned to the owner without the need for the owner to make an application to the traffic commissioner. Regulation 3 substitutes regulation 4 of the 2001 Regulations under the power in new paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A to the 1995 Act, and other regulations are amended as a consequence. Regulation 4 amends regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations to make it a requirement for an immobilisation notice to include information about how and where the owner may apply for the release of the vehicle. Regulation 7 amends regulation 9 of the 2001 Regulations, which prescribes the procedures for notifying people that a vehicle and its contents have been detained. Regulations 8 to 10 amend regulations 10 to 12 of the 2001 Regulations to insert certain time limits into the process, and in consequence of the insertion of a new regulation 23. Regulation 12 inserts a new requirement into regulation 15 of the 2001 Regulations for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to be notified when a detained vehicle is disposed of. Regulation 13 amends regulation 18 of the 2001 Regulations to make provision for any proceeds from the sale of property which exceed expenses incurred by the detention of a vehicle and contents, and which are not claimed by any person, to be used to offset costs incurred in the detention of other property under the 2001 Regulations. Regulation 14 inserts a new regulation 23 into the 2001 Regulations to enable the traffic commissioners to extend specified periods prescribed in the 2001 Regulations where they consider it necessary in order to ensure that a case is dealt with fairly and justly.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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