UK Offence Report

Prescribed proportions of alcohol for replacement of specimens of breath

regulation 6(d) of The Armed Forces (Alcohol Limits for Prescribed Safety-Critical Duties) Regulations 2013

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

d subject to regulation 6(e), in the case of an offence under section 42 of the Act as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 92 or 93 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; and

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 6(d)?

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 Armed Forces (Alcohol Limits for Prescribed Safety-Critical Duties) Regulations 2013.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Set by another provision — the instrument states the penalty by reference to an Act or to another regulation
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

The instrument does not state a penalty itself. It sets one by reference to section 42 of the Act.

penalty is that of the referenced enactment; not stated in this instrument.

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
11 September 2013
In force from
1 November 2013
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.

The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) (“the 2006 Act”) creates a power to test for drugs and alcohol in relation to the performance of safety-critical duties, and section 20A of the 2006 Act makes it an offence to have more than a prescribed level of alcohol in the body when a person is performing or might reasonably expect to be called on to perform a prescribed safety-critical duty. Regulation 3 prescribes higher and lower limits for alcohol in breath, blood and urine. Regulation 4 prescribes the duties which are subject to the higher alcohol limit, and regulation 5 prescribes the duties which are subject to the lower alcohol limit. Under section 93F of the 2006 Act a person who has provided a specimen of breath for testing may require it to be replaced with a blood or urine specimen, if the specimen of breath contains no more than a prescribed proportion of alcohol. Regulation 6 prescribes the proportion of alcohol. The proportion prescribed depends on the offence for which the person suspected is being tested.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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 0.62.

Basis
the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.62 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