xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"

PART 2N.I.Operator liability in respect of arrivals

OffencesN.I.

8.—(1) An operator who fails to comply with the requirement in—

(a)regulation 3(1),

(b)regulation 4(1),

(c)regulation 5(1),

(d)regulation 6(1), F1...

[F2(da)regulation 4A(1),

(db)regulation 4A(3), or]

(e)regulation 7(1),

commits an offence.

(2) An offence under paragraph (1) is punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £10,000.

[F3(3) In relation to an offence in paragraph (1)(a), it is a defence—

(a)for an operator to show that they recorded a unique passenger reference number for the defaulting passenger, or

(b)for an operator alleged to have failed to ensure that a passenger possesses evidence of eligibility for an exemption claimed in a Passenger Locator Form, to show that the passenger presented a document purporting to be appropriate evidence which the operator, or a person acting on behalf of the operator, could not reasonably have been expected to know was not appropriate evidence,

before that passenger boarded the relevant service.]

[F4(4) In relation to the offence in paragraph (1)(b), it is a defence for an operator to show that—

(a)the relevant passenger presented a document purporting to be a required notification which the operator, or a person acting on behalf of the operator, could not reasonably have been expected to know was not a required notification, or

(b)the relevant passenger undertook a qualifying test on board the vessel on which the relevant passenger arrived in Northern Ireland, the result of that test was positive, and it was not reasonably practicable for the relevant passenger to disembark in a country or territory other than Northern Ireland.]

[F5(4A) In relation to the offence in paragraph (1)(da) it is a defence for the operator to show that a passenger presented a document purporting to be the required evidence which the operator, or a person acting on behalf of the operator, could not reasonably have been expected to know was not the required evidence.

(4B) In relation to the offence in paragraph (1)(db) it is a defence for the operator to show that it was not reasonably practicable to have the processes and systems in place at the relevant time.]

(5) In relation to an offence in paragraph (1)(c) or (d), it is a defence for an operator to show that the operator, or a person acting on behalf of the operator, could not reasonably have been expected to know that—

(a)the defaulting passenger had failed to comply with the requirement to possess a testing package or managed isolation package, or

(b)the information provided by the defaulting passenger in relation to the testing package or managed isolation package was false or incorrect in any respect, or incomplete.

(6) In relation to the offence in paragraph (1)(e), it is a defence for the operator to show that the operator, or a person acting on behalf of the operator, could not have been reasonably expected to know that a passenger was a red list arrival.

(7) In this regulation, “unique passenger reference number” means a reference number which has been provided by or on behalf of the defaulting passenger and which includes the letters “UKVI” followed immediately by an underscore and thirteen alphanumeric characters.

Textual Amendments