UK Offence Report

Detention direction

article 20B(7) of The Aviation Security and Piracy (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) 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

7 A person commits an offence if—

a without reasonable excuse he fails to comply with

a requirement of

a detention direction, or

b he intentionally obstructs

a person acting in accordance with subsection (3).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally).

“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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

7 A person commits an offence if— a without reasonable excuse he fails to comply with a requirement of a detention direction, or b he intentionally obstructs a person acting in accordance with subsection (3).

What would breach article 20B(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Aviation Security and Piracy (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) 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
Not determined
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
2 years

'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
15 March 2016
In force from
1 May 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 amends the Aviation Security and Piracy (Overseas Territories) Order 2000 (“the 2000 Order”) to further extend certain provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982, with relevant adaptations and modifications, to the Territories specified in Schedule 1 to the 2000 Order. This Order amends the 2000 Order so as to extend the powers of the Governor (this includes the officer for the time being administering the government of any relevant Territory) in each of the relevant Territories to the effect that: aircraft operators may be directed to refrain from causing or permitting their aircraft to enter the Territories unless searches specified in the direction have taken place; aircraft operators may be directed to modify or alter their aircraft, or apparatus or equipment installed in the aircraft, for the purposes of aviation security; persons authorised by the Governor may detain aircraft for the purposes of aviation security; persons may be forcibly removed from the restricted zone or from an aircraft where they are present in either place without authorisation; a direction or other document may be served by (amongst other things) other electronic means. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this Order as no significant impact on individuals or businesses is foreseen. An Explanatory Memorandum is published alongside this Order at www.legislation.gov.uk.

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 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person “commits 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