UK Offence Report

Transport Act 1968

regulation 4(7) of The Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 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

7 After subsection (4A) insert— 4B A person shall not be liable to be convicted under subsection (1) of this section by reason of using recording equipment which does not bear

a type-approval mark issued under Article

14 of the EU Tachographs Regulation if he proves to the court that the use of the recording equipment was in the course of

a field test authorised under section 96A. 4C Where

a person (“the driver”)—

a in the course of the driver’s employment, uses

a vehicle in contravention of subsection (1), and

b is liable to be convicted under that subsection in respect of that use, the employer also commits an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to

a fine. 4D A person shall not be liable to be convicted under subsection (4C) in respect of the use of

a vehicle if the requirements of Article 10(1) and (2) of the Community Drivers’ Hours Regulation (liability of transport undertakings) and Article 33(1) of the EU Tachographs Regulation (responsibility of transport undertakings) were complied with in relation to that use. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

rk issued under Article 14 of the EU Tachographs Regulation if he proves to the court that the use of the recording equipment was in the course of a field test authorised under section 96A. 4C Where a person (“the driver”)— a in the course of the driver’s employment, uses a vehicle in contravention of subsection (1), and b is liab

What would breach regulation 4(7)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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
29 February 2016
In force from
2 March 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations implement the requirements of Regulation (EU) No. 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on tachographs in road transport (OJ No.L60, 28.2.2014, p.1) (“the EU Regulation”) by amending relevant primary and secondary legislation. The EU Regulation repeals a previous EU Regulation on recording equipment in road transport. It sets out obligations and requirements in relation to the construction, installation, use, testing and control of tachographs used in road transport, reflecting the fact that tachographs now use global positioning system technology. It also sets out the conditions and requirements under which the information and data, other than personal data, recorded, processed or stored by tachographs may be used. An impact assessment has been prepared for these Regulations together with a transposition note setting out how the main elements of the EU Regulation are transposed into UK law. The impact assessment is available at Freight: Vehicle Speeds, Drivers’ Hours and Enforcement Division, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR (telephone 020 7944 5813). The impact assessment is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside this instrument on the UK legislation website at www.legislation.gov.uk.

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.

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 “commits an offence”; the provision states liability on summary conviction; the provision states a penalty in older drafting
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