UK Offence Report

Carriage of goods exported from or destined for Iraq or Kuwait

article 8(5) of The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) 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

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

a in the case of

a British ship registered in any of the Channel Islands or the United Kingdom, or any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, 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 to which this article applies—

i the person to whom the ship or aircraft is for the time being chartered, and

ii if he is such

a person as is referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (3) above, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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.

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 8(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) (Channel Islands) 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
Status not determined
Made
29 August 1990
In force from
30 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 the Channel Islands. It prohibits the importation into the Channel Islands of certain goods exported from Iraq or Kuwait and the exportation from the Channel Islands 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, aircraft and land transport vehicles and makes provision for the investigation of any such ships, aircraft and vehicles that are suspected of contravening this Order. The Order prohibits payments under any bond in respect of a contract the performance of which is unlawful by virtue of this Order or the Export of Goods (Control) (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) Order 1990. 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