UK Offence Report

Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a person who— a is or has been employed by the Central Authority; or b…

paragraph 8(1) of SCHEDULE 3 of The International Recovery of Maintenance (Hague Convention 2007 etc.) Regulations 2012

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 Subject to sub-paragraph (3),

a person who—

a is or has been employed by the Central Authority; or

b provides or has provided services to the Central Authority, is guilty of an offence if that person makes disclosure, otherwise than in accordance with this Schedule, of information referred to in paragraph

3 which has been obtained from

a person or authority listed in paragraph

1 and which relates to

a person whose identity is specified in the information disclosed or can be deduced from it.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 paragraph 8(1) of SCHEDULE 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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the International Recovery of Maintenance (Hague Convention 2007 etc.) Regulations 2012.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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
7 November 2012
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations make provision to facilitate the application of the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of Family Maintenance done at The Hague on 23rd November 2007 (“the Convention”) in England and Wales. This provision is extended to Scotland in relation to enforcement of international maintenance decisions by way of driving disqualification, and both Scotland and Northern Ireland regarding the sharing of information by certain Government departments to facilitate establishment and enforcement of maintenance decisions to which the 2007 Hague Convention applies. The Convention will be concluded by the European Union on a date yet to be determined by virtue of Council Decision 2011/432/EU (OJ No. L 192, 22.7.2011, pages 39 to 50). European Union Member States (apart from Denmark) are bound to apply the Convention by virtue of conclusion by the European Union. Regulation 4 designates the Lord Chancellor as Central Authority for England and Wales as required by Article 4 of the Convention. Regulation 5 and Schedule 1 make provision for the enforcement of maintenance decisions and maintenance arrangements made in Contracting States to the Convention by the courts of England and Wales. Provision is also made for the treatment by the Central Authority and by the courts of an application to establish maintenance received from the Central Authority of a Contracting State. Regulation 6 and Schedule 2 enable courts to which an application is made to enforce a maintenance decision under certain international instruments to do so by way of a driving disqualification order. For the courts of England and Wales, the power to impose driving disqualification is provided within the existing process for enforcement following a complaint under section 93 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. For cases in Scotland, a summary application is to be made to the sheriff court. Regulation 7 and Schedule 3 make provision to enable the Central Authorities for the Convention in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to request specific information from certain public bodies for use in recovery of maintenance in cases under the Convention. This power enables the Central Authorities to fulfil certain of their duties under the Convention (in particular, those under Article 6). The provisions broadly reflect those of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 relating to cross border maintenance matters between the Member States of the European Union, and the provision made in support of that Regulation in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 at Schedule 2. Regulation 8 and Schedule 4 make amendments to legislation consequential upon the application of the Convention in the United Kingdom, in particular to adapt the existing legislative machinery for enforcement of maintenance orders so that it can be applied to enforce maintenance decisions under the Convention. Provision is also made to revoke references to Norway in two existing instruments, subject to certain transitional and savings arrangements. Norway is already a Contracting State to the Convention and upon the Convention coming into force for the European Union, the recovery of maintenance in international cases between Norway and the United Kingdom will be primarily governed by the Convention. Future ratification or accession of States to the Convention will require further legislative provision where the United Kingdom has existing arrangements with such States for enforcement of maintenance which are superseded by the Convention. Regulation 9 and Schedule 5 make further provision consequential on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 in the United Kingdom from 18th June 2011. In particular, further amendments have been made to reflect the jurisdictional requirements of that Regulation, and revocations of the references to certain European Union Member States made in existing legislation where the Regulation supersedes the international agreements which that legislation implemented. Amendments are also made to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 in Schedule 1 regarding arrangements for the treatment by the Central Authorities and the courts of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, of applications for establishment of maintenance made under the Regulation. A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector is available and is annexed to the explanatory memorandum which is available alongside the instrument at www.legislation.gov.uk.

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