UK Offence Report

Investigation, etc. of suspected British ships and aircraft

article 8(8) of The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1990

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

8 Each of the following persons shall be guilty of an offence against this Order, that is to say:—

a A master of

a ship who disobeys any direction given under paragraph (1) of this Article with respect to the landing of any cargo;

b A master of

a ship or

a charterer or an operator or

a commander of the aircraft who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within

a reasonable time to comply with any request made under this Article by any person empowered to make it or who wilfully furnishes false information or produces false documents to such

a person in response to such

a request;

c A master or

a member of

a crew of

a ship or

a charterer or an operator or

a commander or

a member of

a crew of an aircraft who wilfully obstructs any such person (or any person acting under the authority of any such person) in the exercise of his powers under this Article.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 master
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 (wilfully).

“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: wilfully; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

harterer or an operator or a commander of the aircraft who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any request made under this Article by any person empowered to make it or who wilfully furnishes false information or produces false documents to such a person in response to such a request; c A master

What would breach article 8(8)?

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 Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1990.
  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
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
8 August 1990
In force from
9 August 1990
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, made under the United Nations Act 1946, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 1. It prohibits the importation into the territory of certain goods exported from Iraq or Kuwait and the exportation from the territory of certain goods intended for Iraq or Kuwait. It also prohibits certain activities and dealings relating to the exportation from Iraq or Kuwait of the former goods and the supply to Iraq or Kuwait of the latter goods, including carriage of these goods in British ships or aircraft. It also makes provision for the investigation of ships and aircraft that are suspected of contravening this Order. It confers certain powers relating to the obtaining of evidence and information for the purposes of the Order.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

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