UK Offence Report

Penalties

article 6(g) of The Air Navigation (Single European Sky) (Penalties) (Amendment) Order 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

g after paragraph (4), insert— 4A Any local air traffic flow management unit who, when requested by an airport slot coordinator or

a managing body of

a coordinated airport, fails to provide to the person making the request the accepted fight plan of

a flight operating at that airport, before that flight takes place, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

4 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to do something the instrument requires
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 article 6(g)?

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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Air Navigation (Single European Sky) (Penalties) (Amendment) Order 2013, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£2,500
Standard scale
Level 4
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 November 2013
In force from
12 December 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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order amends the Air Navigation (Single European Sky) (Penalties) Order 2009 (S.I 2009/1735) (the 2009 Order) by adding provisions making it an offence: a to fail to comply with Articles 6, 7, 8, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 or 11.5 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 (OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p.10) laying down common rules on air traffic flow management which concern obligations on air traffic service units, operators, and airport managing bodies, obligations concerning critical events, consistency between flight plans and airport slots, and monitoring of compliance to air traffic flow management measures; b for a local air traffic flow management unit, when requested by an airport slot coordinator or a managing body of a coordinated airport, to fail to provide the accepted fight plan of a flight operating at that airport, before that flight takes place; and c to fail to comply with an obligation imposed by an implementing rule drawn up under Article 3 of the interoperability regulation (Regulation (EC) No 552/2004; OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p.26) and listed in Schedule 2 to the Single European Sky (National Supervisory Authority) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/2620). A person guilty of the offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. In addition, this Order replaces reference to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 with reference to the superceding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1035/2011 and updates the numbering in the 2009 Order accordingly. Article 8 requires the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of the 2009 Order and publish a report within five years after this Order comes into force and within every five years after that. Following a review it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider whether the Order should remain as it is, or be revoked or be amended. A further instrument would be needed to revoke the Order or to amend it. A regulatory impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector is available from the Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR and is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside this instrument at http://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”; the provision states liability on summary conviction
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