UK Offence Report

Obstruction of works

article 7 of The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (Liverpool Cruise Terminal Extension) Harbour Revision 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

7 Any person who without lawful authority—

a intentionally or recklessly obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of or in constructing the works; or

b who interferes with, moves or removes any pole, stake, station point or bench mark established for the purpose of such setting out, will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale and will in addition be liable to repay to the company as

a debt any reasonable expenses incurred by it in making good any damage resulting from such obstruction, moving or removal.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally, recklessly.

What would breach article 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 Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (Liverpool Cruise Terminal Extension) Harbour Revision Order 2021.
  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
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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
14 January 2021
In force from
12 February 2021
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 authorises The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Limited (“the Company”) to construct and maintain works as defined in article 2(1) (interpretation) within the limits of deviation shown on the deposited plans and sections. The principal works comprise the demolition of the existing timber and concrete jetty known as Princes Jetty; the construction of a suspended deck on piles driven into the river bed to support a new cruise liner terminal building for use as a baggage hall, passenger lounges and other associated facilities; the construction of a vehicular and pedestrian linkspan bridge and floating pontoon; modifications to the existing landing stage; the removal of two existing mooring dolphins and construction of two new mooring dolphins (article 3). The Order creates an offence of, without lawful authority, intentionally or recklessly obstructing the carrying out of the works, with a fine on summary conviction not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (article 7). Provision is made against danger to navigation (article 10) and for the abatement of works abandoned or decayed (article 11). The Secretary of State may order a survey and examination of the works (defined in article 2(1)) or of the site on which they are to be constructed (article 12). Provision is made for the lighting of the works permanently (article 13) and during construction (article 10). A defence of due diligence is available to the Company in respect of offences under articles 9, 10 and 13. The deposited plans and sections referred to in article 2(1) may be inspected during working hours at the offices of The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Limited at Maritime Centre, Port of Liverpool, L21 1LA and at the offices of Liverpool City Council at Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool, L3 1DS. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this Order as there is no, or no significant, impact predicted on businesses, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector. An Explanatory Memorandum is available alongside the instrument on the UK legislation website, 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 →

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