UK Offence Report

Obstruction of construction of authorised works

article 26 of The Transport for Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (Trafford Park Extension) Order 2016

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

26 Any person who, without reasonable excuse—

a obstructs another person acting under the authority of the undertaker in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any of the authorised works; or

b interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any person acting under the authority of the undertaker, is 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

26 Any person who, without reasonable excuse— a obstructs another person acting under the authority of the undertaker in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any of the authorised works; or b interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any person acting under

What would breach article 26?

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 Transport for Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (Trafford Park Extension) Order 2016.
  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
3 November 2016
In force from
24 November 2016
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 Transport for Greater Manchester (referred to in this Order as the undertaker) to construct and operate a transit system in the borough of Trafford, being an extension to the existing Manchester Metrolink system by way of a new route joining existing tramway routes from the existing Pomona Metrolink stop through Trafford Park and terminating at the Trafford Centre retail and leisure complex. For that purpose, the Order also authorises the compulsory purchase and temporary use of land, the diversion of existing rights of way, street works and ancillary works. The Order also contains a number of ancillary and consequential provisions to provide for the construction, maintenance and operation of the transit system. A copy of the works and land plans, the book of reference and the traffic regulation plans mentioned in this Order and certified in accordance with article 51 (certification of plans, etc.) of this Order, may be inspected free of charge during working hours at the offices of the undertaker at— Transport for Greater Manchester, 2 Piccadilly Place, Manchester, M1 3BG; and Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Sale Waterside, Sale, Manchester, M33 6FZ.

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