UK Offence Report

Making of false statements etc.

article 6(1) of The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Amendment) 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

1 If any person, in giving any information or making any application under or for the purposes of any provision of this Order, makes any statement which that person knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular, he or she is guilty of an offence and shall be liable— a on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or b on conviction on indictment, to 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: recklessly.

What would breach article 6(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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Amendment) Order 2009.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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 2009
In force from
Not determined
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 amends the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 2005 (“the principal Order”) in three ways. Firstly, it amends the principal Order to give effect to a new bi-national regulation (“the new bi-national regulation”) made by the Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) established by Article 10 of the Treaty of Canterbury (see full citation and reference in article 1(2)(a) and footnote (c) to that provision) to supervise the operation of the Channel Tunnel Fixed link. The new bi-national regulation, made on 23rd July 2009, concerns the conditions of access to the Channel Tunnel. It implements the amendments made by Directive 2007/58/EC to Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ No. L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25), and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ No. L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29), and makes further provisions. The new bi-national regulation shall repeal and replace an earlier regulation made by the IGC on 25th October 2005. More specifically, compared with the former bi-national regulation, the new bi-national regulation: extends, from 1st January 2010, the right of access to the Channel Tunnel for international passenger services from international groupings to all railway undertakings (article 3.1 of the new bi-national regulation, implementing articles 1(2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Directive 2007/58/EC); includes new provisions on the duration of Framework Agreements between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers (article 8 of the new bi-national regulation, implementing article 2(4) of Directive 2007/58/EC); includes special provisions on framework agreements, applying when infrastructure has been designated as a “specialised infrastructure” under Article 24 of Directive 2001/14/EC (article 8 of the new bi-national regulation, also implementing article 2(4) of the Directive 2007/58/EC); provides for the Concessionaires of the Tunnel to allow a reasonable consultation period on their Network Statement (article 5.3 of the new bi-national regulation, changing the implementation of article 3 of Directive 2001/14/EC); changes the wording on judicial review for IGC decisions under the bi-national regulation (article 12.5 of the new bi-national regulation, changing the implementation of article 30(6) of Directive 2001/14/EC); requires negotiations between the Concessionaires of the Tunnel and a capacity requestor, concerning the level of charges, to be supervised by the IGC (article 11.4 of the new bi-national regulation, implementing article 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC). Accordingly, article 2(7) and the Schedule substitute a new Schedule of “international articles” to the principal Order. That Schedule contains the text of the new bi-national regulation. Its content will have the force of law by virtue of this and by virtue of article 3 of the principal Order, as amended by article 2(4) of this Order. Under article 1(2)(a) of this Order, the substitution and amendment will take place from the date when both governments have completed the domestic processes necessary to give the new bi-national regulation the force of law in their respective legal systems, and notified each other that they have done so. This means that the content of the Schedule will come into force and be given the force of law pursuant to the process required by Article 13.2 of the new bi-national regulation. Under article 1(3) of this Order, the Secretary of State must give notice, in the Gazettes, of the date when the Schedule enters into force. Article 3 implements the transitional arrangements under article 13.1 of the bi-national regulation, whereby Article 3 of the former bi-national regulation remains in force until 31st December 2009. As a result, between the date on which this Order comes into force and the opening of international services to all railway undertakings on 1 January 2010, Article 3 of the new bi-national regulation will not have effect, while the unamended Article 3 of the Schedule to the principal Order will continue to have effect. This means that international groupings will not lose their rights of access on the coming into force of the bi-national regulation. Secondly, articles 2(2) and 2(3) of this Order update the references to Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC in the principal Order, so that they are read as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC. Again, these articles come into force only at the same time as the new bi-national regulation. Thirdly, this Order amends the principal Order to make changes to the enforcement regime under the principal Order. Article 2(5) provides that the IGC has the power to bring civil enforcement proceedings in respect of the breach of certain obligations, including by seeking an injunction or, in Scotland, an interdict. These obligations are: article 4(3) of the principal Order, which creates an obligation to comply with certain directions given by the IGC in the context of an appeal made to it, in its capacity as the regulatory body (see article 4 of the principal Order, Article 12 of the Schedule to the principal Order and Article 12 of the new bi-national regulation); and the provisions of the bi-national regulations imposing certain obligations (especially in relation to finance) on the Channel Tunnel Concessionaires as infrastructure managers (see Article 4 of the Schedule to the principal Order and Article 4 of the new bi-national regulation). Under article 2(6), making false statements for the purposes of the principal Order (including the Schedule) will be an offence, as it is already in the domestic context of the Railway Infrastructure (Access and Management) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/3049). Article 2(6) also makes provision regarding the criminal liability of the officers and members of bodies corporate and the partners of Scottish partnerships. An impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sectors has been produced and is available from the Rail Network Strategy Division, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR, and is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument on the OPSI website (www.opsi.org.uk). A transposition note is also available from the same sources.

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