UK Offence Report

Prescribed practices that are unfair or involve the misuse of internet domain names

regulation 2(3)(e) of The Internet Domain Registry (Prescribed Practices and Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2024

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

e any activity that would constitute an offence under—

i section

1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children),

ii article

3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (indecent photographs of children), or

iii section

52 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (indecent photographs etc. of children).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 a person 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 regulation 2(3)(e)?

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 Internet Domain Registry (Prescribed Practices and Prescribed Requirements) Regulations 2024.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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
17 October 2024
In force from
12 November 2024
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations set out the prescribed practices and prescribed requirements relating to the consideration of whether there is a relevant failure in relation to a qualifying internet domain registry for the purposes of section 124O of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) (“the 2003 Act”) (notification of failure in relation to internet domain registry). “Qualifying internet domain registry” is defined in section 124O(7). Section 124O of the 2003 Act sets out that the Secretary of State must provide a notification to a qualifying internet domain registry if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a serious relevant failure in relation to that registry is taking place or has taken place and the Secretary of State wishes to exercise the powers under section 124P (appointment of manager of internet domain registry) or 124R (functions of manager etc). Section 124O(3) sets out the circumstances in which there is a relevant failure in relation to a qualifying internet domain registry. For the purposes of subsection (3), these Regulations prescribe the— a practices that are unfair or involve the misuse of internet domain names (regulation 2), and b requirements for the arrangements made by the registry for dealing with complaints in connection with internet domain names (regulation 3). Section 124O(4) sets out when a relevant failure is serious. These Regulations ensure that the UK remains compliant with paragraph 1(a) of Article 18:28 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is available at: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trade-agreements/TPP/Text-ENGLISH/18.-Intellectual-Property-Chapter.pdf. A copy of this can be requested from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, 100 Parliament Street, London, SW1A 2BQ. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary sector or community bodies 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