UK Offence Report

Offences as to moorings etc.

article 15(1) of The Cattewater Harbour Revision Order 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

1 A person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

4 on the standard scale if that person—

a intentionally obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Commissioners in setting out moorings in the harbour;

b intentionally and without lawful authority pulls up or removes any mooring or any part of any mooring in the harbour;

c places, lays downs, maintains, retains or renews any mooring not provided under article 13 (power to lay moorings) or licensed under article 14 (licensing of moorings);

d without reasonable excuse causes or permits

a vessel to be moored in the harbour except at

a mooring provided under article 13 (power to lay moorings) or licensed under article 14 (licensing of moorings) or at

a quay, jetty or other work provided for the mooring of vessels;

e without reasonable excuse causes or permits

a vessel to be moored at

a mooring provided under article 13 (power to lay moorings) or licensed under article 14 (licensing of moorings) which the person concerned is not entitled to use.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

gs) or licensed under article 14 (licensing of moorings); d without reasonable excuse causes or permits a vessel to be moored in the harbour except at a mooring provided under article 13 (power to lay moorings) or licensed under article 14 (licensing of moorings) or at a quay, jetty or other work provided for the mooring of vessels; e without

What would breach article 15(1)?

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 Cattewater Harbour Revision Order 2025.
  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
£2,500
Standard scale
Level 4
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
25 March 2025
In force from
17 April 2025
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 empowers the Cattewater Harbour Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) as harbour authority for Cattewater Harbour (Port of Plymouth) to extend the limits of the harbour to include the harbour premises (article 3). The illustrative plans (defined in article 3) showing the harbour limits and harbour premises may be inspected during office hours at the harbour office at 2, The Barbican, Plymouth, Devon PL1 2LR and on the harbour website (www.plymouthport.org.uk/). This Order confers on the Commissioners and the harbour master (defined in article 2) powers of general and special direction for the regulation and management of the harbour (articles 4 to 10). The powers of general direction are extended to include the regulation of vehicles in the harbour and provision is made for a register of all in force general directions which may be inspected during office hours at the harbour office and on the harbour website (article 4). This Order creates an offence of failing to comply with general directions or special directions, the penalty for which is a fine on summary conviction not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (article 8). A defence of due diligence is available to a person charged under article 8 (article 8(2)). The Order also provides powers in relation to the laying and licensing of moorings in the harbour (articles 13 and 14) and related offences (article 15) and borrowing (article 16). The Order also amends the 1915 Order to revoke article 70 (provision respecting lighters employed at Oreston works) (article 17) and amends the 1950 Order to provide further clarity to the exemption relating to vessels and cargo dues contained in the First Schedule, Part V, Exemption by expressly stating the position with regard to passenger dues (article 18). In addition, the Order amends Schedule 2 of the 2005 Order to alter provisions relating to the appointment, period of office and removal of the chair and deputy chair of the Commissioners (article 19). In addition to the standard saving provisions for the Crown and Trinity House, the Order also contains two saving provisions relating to the Dockyard Port of Plymouth and the King’s Harbour Master, making it clear that the regulations of the Dockyard Port of Plymouth and the directions of the King’s Harbour Master have priority over those given by or made by the Commissioners or their harbour master, and do not in any other way alter, prejudice or affect the jurisdiction or any rights, powers, authorities or privileges of the King’s Harbour Master (articles 12 and 22). 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