UK Offence Report

Amendment of article 5

article 4(2) of The Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements and Miscellaneous Provisions) (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 After paragraph (1) insert— 1ZA Any act or omission which—

a takes place inside the United Kingdom in

a control zone and relates to an officer belonging to the French Republic; and

b would constitute an offence under

a frontier control enactment if it took place in relation to an officer belonging to the United Kingdom, shall be treated for the purposes of that enactment as if it were an act or omission which had taken place in relation to an officer belonging to the United Kingdom. 1ZB Section

22 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is modified for the purposes of paragraph (1ZA) so that the reference in subsection (1) of that section to an immigration officer includes

a reference to an officer belonging to the French Republic. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 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 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 4(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 Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2020.

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
27 August 2020
In force from
Not determined
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.

Articles 2 to 5 of this Order amend the Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1813). Article 4 provides that acts or omissions in relation to officers of the French Republic taking place in the United Kingdom which would constitute offences under a frontier control enactment are to be treated as having taken place in relation to officers of the United Kingdom. The other amendments to that Order update and omit some out of date legislative references in that Order. Articles 6 to 13 of, this Order amend the Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1405) (“the 1994 Order”). This is mainly to implement the agreement between the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“the quadripartite agreement”) amending and supplementing the Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, concerning Rail Traffic between Belgium and the United Kingdom using the Channel Fixed Link with Protocol, done at Brussels on 15 December 1993 (“the tripartite articles”). The Schedule to this Order substitutes Schedule 2 to the 1994 Order by setting out the tripartite articles and the attached protocol as amended by the quadripartite agreement. Article 9(5)(a) corrects an error in the 1994 Order made by an amendment contained in the Data Protection Act 2018 (c.12). Article 10(1) to (3) amends the 1994 Order to provide that acts or omissions in relation to officers of the French Republic or the Kingdom of Belgium taking place in the United Kingdom which would constitute offences under a frontier control enactment are to be treated as having taken place in relation to officers of the United Kingdom. Paragraph (4) of that article then amends those amendments to apply to acts or omissions taking place in relation to officers of a Designated State from the time the quadripartite agreement comes into force (see article 1(2) and (3)). Article 14 makes consequential amendments to other Orders and article 15 revokes the Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/409). A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.

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 →

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 0.75.

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