UK Offence Report

d the Court may on the application of the Administrator require any person known or suspected to have in his…

article 1(5)(d) of The Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Order 1948

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

d the Court may on the application of the Administrator require any person known or suspected to have in his possession or under his control any property, rights or interests subject to the charge, including any person known or suspected to owe

a debt to the Hungarian Government or to

a Hungarian national, or any person whom the Court may consider capable of giving information with respect to the same, subject to payment or tender of reasonable expenses of his attendance, to attend as

a witness and to give evidence or produce documents before the Court or before such officer as the Court may appoint for the purpose of examining into the matter, who shall have power to take evidence and administer oaths, and if any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the provisions of the order he shall be guilty of an offence against Section

1 of the Act and on any such examination the Administrator shall be entitled to appear and be represented and to examine any such person; for the purposes of this sub-paragraph “the Court” means the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session; the Lord Chancellor, or in Scotland, the Court of Session may make rules for regulating the procedure under this sub-paragraph;

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised); other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

The defence, as drafted

take evidence and administer oaths, and if any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the provisions of the order he shall be guilty of an offence against Section 1 of the Act and on any such examination the Administrator shall be entitled to appear and be represented and to examine any such person; for the purposes of th

What would breach article 1(5)(d)?

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 Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Order 1948.

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
26 January 1948
In force from
2 February 1948
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.

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