Impounding of ships

article 4(4) of The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1993

Status not determined
Requires proof of a state of mind
Either way
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

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

4 Subject to paragraph (2)(b) of this article, if any ship which has been impounded under this article proceeds to sea before it is released by the Governor, the master of the ship and any other person who knowingly sends the ship to sea shall each be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof: Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (knowingly).

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: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: knowingly.

The defence, as drafted

proceedings for an offence in contravention of this article it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the services in question were to be provided for the purposes of any business carried on in Serbia or Montenegro.

What would breach article 4(4)?

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.

Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1993.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: £5,000
Maximum prison (summary): 6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment): 2 years

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014
Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 12 May 1993
In force from: 14 May 1993
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 Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, gives effect in the dependent territories of the United Kingdom to certain provisions of a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 820 of 17th April 1993.It provides for the impounding of ships, goods vehicles and aircraft which are majority owned or effectively controlled by persons connected with Serbia and Montenegro or which are determined to have been operated or used in violation of relevant Security Council Resolutions, and for the forfeiture of any such ships, vehicles, aircraft or their cargo where they have been determined to be in violation of those Resolutions.The Order restricts the provision of services for the purposes of any business carried on in Serbia or Montenegro.It also prohibits the entry into the territorial sea of Montenegro of commercial ships which are registered in the dependent territories and certain other commercial ships.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Prohibition on the provision of servicesarticle 11(3)
Prohibition on entering territorial sea of Montenegroarticle 12(2)
If for the purposes of obtaining any licence under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes…article 14(1)
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Governor under this Order…article 14(2)
Investigation of suspected ships, goods vehicles or aircraftarticle 3(10)
Impounding of shipsarticle 4(3)
Impounding of goods vehiclesarticle 5(2)
Impounding of aircraftarticle 6(3)
Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE 2

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1993 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1993