UK Offence Report

Offences: Contravention of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for…

article 265B(2) of The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020

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 A remote pilot who contravenes paragraph (1) in relation to

a flight, and who was not also the UAS operator in relation to that flight, is guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 remote pilot
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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 remote pilot 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 265B(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. On these words an offence is committed where a remote pilot contravenes paragraph (1) in relation to a flight, and who was not also the UAS operator in relation to that flight.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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
16 December 2020
In force from
31 December 2020
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 Order 2016 (S.1. 2016/765) (“the 2016 Order”), to update the legislative framework for unmanned aircraft for when Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (“the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation”) becomes applicable on 31st December 2020. It also creates criminal offences for breaches of requirements in that Regulation. The flying of “small unmanned aircraft” up to 20kg in mass is currently regulated by articles 94, 94A to 94G and 95 of the 2016 Order which deal, for example, with registration of operators and acknowledgements of competency for remote pilots. Articles 6 and 8 of this instrument revoke those provisions where they are superseded by new requirements in the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation, which will apply to all sizes of unmanned aircraft except those subject to certification under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems. Article 94A of the 2016 Order is amended so that it will continue to require additional permissions for flights by unmanned aircraft over or near certain aerodromes, and this too will apply to all sizes of unmanned aircraft except those subject to certification. Article 9 inserts new articles 265A to 265F into the 2016 Order. Articles 265A and 265B create criminal offences where operators and remote pilots of unmanned aircraft breach requirements in the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation. Article 265C makes it an offence for the owner of an unmanned aircraft in the certified category to cause or permit that aircraft to be flown without first having registered. Article 265D reduces the minimum age for remote pilots to 12 or 14 in certain categories and, until the end of the transition period, makes it an offence for a UAS operator to cause or permit an unmanned aircraft to be flown by a remote pilot who is not older than the relevant age. Article 265E applies certain provisions of the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation to tethered small unmanned aircraft which would otherwise not be subject to any regulation because they are excluded from the application Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Safety Agency, and therefore from the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation. Article 265F sets out the maximum penalties for each criminal offence. Article 10 appoints the Civil Aviation Authority as the competent authority for the purposes of the Unmanned Aircraft Delegated Regulation and the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation. Articles 3 to 5 and 12 make consequential amendments to the 2016 Order, and article 11 also inserts necessary definitions. Article 13 provides transitional arrangements for the ongoing recognition of certificates of registration, acknowledgements of competency, and certain other permissions and exemptions granted under the 2016 Order, and sets out the effect that these are to be treated as having under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument, as no, or no significant impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen. An Explanatory Memorandum has been published alongside this instrument on the UK legislation website at www.legislation.gov.uk.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

This instrument became law without a debate or a vote. Under the negative procedure it took effect unless a motion to stop it succeeded, and none was tabled.

Neither House could have amended it. A statutory instrument is put to each House as a whole thing, to be approved or not; the Houses can reject an instrument or record their regret, but they cannot change a word of it. That is the constitutional position for every offence on this site.

The full procedural history →

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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