UK Offence Report

Carriage of certain goods exported from or destined for Iraq or Kuwait

article 5(5) of The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

5 If any ship, aircraft or land transport vehicle is used in contravention of paragraph (2) of this Article, then—

a in the case of

a British ship registered in the United Kingdom or in any other country or place to which this Order extends or any aircraft so registered, the owner and the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

b in the case of any other ship or aircraft, the person to whom the ship or aircraft is for the time being chartered and, if he is such

a person as is referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (3) of this Article, the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

c in the case of

a land transport vehicle, the operator of the vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence against this Order unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Iraq or Kuwait to any destination therein or to any person for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Iraq or Kuwait.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 owner
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 owner 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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; 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

e vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence against this Order unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Iraq or Kuwait to any destination therein or to any person for the purposes of any business carried on in or o

What would breach article 5(5)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. 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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003 (revoked)
Revoked on
14 June 2003
Made
8 August 1990
In force from
9 August 1990
Extent
E+W+S+NI

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 661 of 6th August 1990, on the exportation of goods from Iraq and Kuwait and on supply of goods to Iraq and Kuwait as well as certain related activities and dealings, including the carriage of such goods in British ships or aircraft. The Order also makes provision for the investigation of ships and aircraft that are suspected of contravening the Order.

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