UK Offence Report

Obstruction of works

article 9 of The Port of Bristol (Deep Sea Container Terminal) Harbour Revision Order 2010

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

9 Any person who, without reasonable excuse—

a obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in constructing, maintaining or using the works; or

b interferes with, moves or removes any equipment used in connection with the construction, maintenance or use of the works, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

9 Any person who, without reasonable excuse— a obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in constructing, maintaining or using the works; or b interferes with, moves or removes any equipment used in connection with the construction, maintenance or use of the works, shall be guilty

What would breach article 9?

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 Port of Bristol (Deep Sea Container Terminal) Harbour Revision Order 2010.
  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
6 August 2010
In force from
1 September 2010
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 First Corporate Shipping Limited as harbour authority for the Port of Bristol and the Harbour of Bristol (other than the City Docks and the Portishead Pier and Docks) to reclaim land and to construct works at The Port of Bristol and on the bed of the River Severn, including a breakwater, a new quay, port facilities and rail infrastructure, and to dredge the River Severn in connection with those works and to provide an approach channel to those works. The Order also authorises the carrying out of subsidiary works and related construction activity. The works will form part of Avonmouth Docks and of the undertaking of the Company. The Order extends the application of enactments and byelaws affecting the Port of Bristol and Harbour of Bristol so as to include the works. By virtue of section 7(5) of the Pilotage Act 1987 a direction given by a competent harbour authority for the purposes of making pilotage compulsory for ships navigating in a specified area shall not apply to any area which is outside the authority’s harbour unless the limits of jurisdiction of the authority for pilotage have been extended to cover that area. This Order accordingly extends the limits of jurisdiction of First Corporate Shipping Limited for pilotage purposes under Part 1 of the Pilotage Act 1987 so as to include an area outside the port in respect of which the authority considers that pilotage should be compulsory. The deposited plans and sections of the works authorised by the Order can be inspected during normal working hours at the offices of the Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR and at the offices of the Company, St Andrew’s House, St Andrew’s Road, Avonmouth, Bristol BS11 9DQ.

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