UK Offence Report

Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reach

article 12 of The Libya (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) Order 1992

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

12 Any exporter or any shipper of goods specified in Schedule I to this Order which have been exported from any of the Channel Islands shall, if so required by the Chief Revenue Officer furnish within such time as he may allow proof to his satisfaction that the goods have reached either— a a destination to which they were authorised to be exported by a licence granted under this Order, or b a destination to which their exportation was not prohibited by this Order, and if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Order and liable— a in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; and b in the Bailiwick of Jersey, on conviction to a fine, unless he proves that he did not consent to or connive at the goods reaching any destination other than such a destination as aforesaid.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 exporter
Conduct
importing or exporting without authority
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 exporter 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

and b in the Bailiwick of Jersey, on conviction to a fine, unless he proves that he did not consent to or connive at the goods reaching any destination other than such a destination as aforesaid.

What would breach article 12?

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. Moving the goods across the border under the Libya (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) Order 1992 without the licence the instrument requires.
  2. Holding a licence for one consignment and using it for another.
  3. Sending goods in transit through the United Kingdom, where the provision catches transit as well as import and export.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

the level is stated but no money value is given: this instrument extends outside the United Kingdom, where the standard scale set by s.122(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 does not run.

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 April 1992
In force from
15 April 1992
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, imposes in the Channel Islands restrictions, pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No.748 of 31st March 1992, on the export to Libya and supply to persons connected with Libya of arms and related materiel. It also places restrictions on arrangements for the use of intellectual property rights by persons connected with Libya in connection with the manufacture or maintenance of arms and related goods. It restricts the provision to persons connected with Libya of technical advice, assistance and training in relation to the supply, manufacture, maintenance or use of arms and related goods. The Order imposes restrictions on the export to Libya and supply to persons connected with Libya of aircraft and aircraft components and on the servicing of Libyan aircraft. It places restrictions on the insurance of such aircraft and prohibits persons from carrying on business as Libyan Arab Airlines. It also restricts the making of payments under any bond in respect of a contract the performance of which is unlawful by virtue of this Order. It also prohibits the making of or obtaining payments under certain indemnities in respect of such bonds.

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