UK Offence Report

Contravention of the UK Implementing Regulation - UAS operator

regulation 2(3) of The Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

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 A UAS operator who contravenes

a relevant requirement imposed in the UK Implementing Regulation 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an uas operator
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 an uas operator 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)?

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 an uas operator contravenes a relevant requirement imposed in the UK Implementing Regulation.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, 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 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
10 December 2025
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations create criminal offences where operators and remote pilots of unmanned aircraft breach requirements in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (EUR 2019/947) (“the Implementing Regulation”). The offences largely replicate the offences in articles 265A, 265B and 265C of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765), which are omitted by paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to these Regulations. Regulation 2 sets out offences for contravention of the Implementing Regulation by a UAS operator. Regulation 3 sets out offences for contravention of the Implementing Regulation by a remote pilot. Regulation 4 creates an offence relating to registration of certified model aircraft. Regulation 5 sets out penalties for the offences in these Regulations. Regulation 6 provides for the liability of directors and other officers of a body corporate which has committed an offence. Regulation 7 sets out a defence to the offences in these Regulations. Regulation 8 provides that Part 2 has effect subject to Schedule 10 to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (c. 12). Part 3 and the Schedules make consequential amendments to the Police Act 1997 (c. 50), the Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765) and the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

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