UK Offence Report

Amendments to the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993

article 3(2) of The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) and Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2015

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

2 After paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3, insert— 3A An immigration officer may exercise the power of detention conferred by section 2(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 in

a control zone in France in respect of—

a an individual who the immigration officer thinks might be liable to arrest by

a constable under section 24(1), (2) or (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an act or omission which would constitute an offence under

a frontier control enactment if it had taken place in England, or

b an individual subject to

a warrant for arrest who is sought by the United Kingdom authorities. 3B An immigration officer may exercise the power of detention conferred by section 2(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 in

a supplementary control zone in France in respect of—

a an individual who an immigration officer thinks might be liable to arrest by

a constable under section 24(1), (2) or (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an act or omission which would constitute an offence under an immigration control enactment if it had taken place in England, or

b an individual subject to

a warrant for arrest who is sought by the United Kingdom authorities.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an immigration officer
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 an immigration officer 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 3(2)?

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 Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) and Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2015.

Penalty

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

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
23 March 2015
In force from
16 April 2015
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 1993 (S.I. 1993/1813) (“the 1993 Order”) and the Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1405) (“the 1994 Order”) to enable the detention at ports powers at sections 1 to 4 of the UK Borders Act 2007 to be exercised at control zones and supplementary controls zones in France and Belgium and at international rail stations and the fixed channel tunnel link terminal in the United Kingdom.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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