UK Offence Report

Powers of arrest and detention outside United Kingdom

paragraph 2(3) of SCHEDULE of The Channel Tunnel (Arrangements with the Kingdom of the Netherlands) (Amendment) Order 2021

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

3 An immigration officer may exercise the power of detention conferred by section 2(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 in

a control zone in the Netherlands in respect of—

a an individual who the immigration officer thinks might be liable to arrest by

a constable under section 24(1), (2) or (3) of the 1984 Act for an act or omission which would constitute an offence under

a frontier control enactment if it had taken place in England, or

b an individual subject to

a warrant for arrest who is sought by the United Kingdom authorities.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 immigration 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 immigration 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 paragraph 2(3) of SCHEDULE?

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 (Arrangements with the Kingdom of the Netherlands) (Amendment) Order 2021.

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
26 October 2021
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.

This Order implements into United Kingdom law the provisions of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning Border Controls on Rail Traffic between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom using the Channel Fixed Link, done at the Hague on 10 July 2020 (the “Bilateral Agreement”) that relate to officer powers. Article 2 amends the Channel Tunnel (Arrangements with the Kingdom of the Netherlands) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/916)(“the 2020 Order”) to insert a new Schedule 2 setting out the powers available to officers of both Contracting Parties while carrying out their functions in the territory of the other State. It also provides for this Schedule to be revoked from the date upon which 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 amending and supplementing the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of the French Republic concerning Rail Traffic between Belgium and the United Kingdom using the Channel Fixed Link with Protocol, done at Brussels on 15 December 1993, done at Brussels (“the Quadripartite Agreement”) on 7 July 2020 comes into force. The Quadripartite Agreement makes separate provision for these powers from the date on which it comes into force. Finally, it inserts two paragraphs of Article 16 of the Bilateral Agreement into Schedule 1 of the 2020 Order. Those paragraphs confirm that parts of the Agreement shall also cease to have effect from the date on which the Quadripartite Agreement comes into force. 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