UK Offence Report

Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reach

article 5(1) of The United Nations Arms Embargoes (Liberia, Somalia and the Former Yugoslavia) Order 1993

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 If for the purpose of obtaining any licence under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in

a material particular or recklessly makes any statement or furnishes any document or information which is false in

a material particular he shall 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
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 (for the purpose of obtaining, recklessly).

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: recklessly, for the purpose of obtaining.

The defence, as drafted

n offence in contravention of paragraph (1) of this article it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove, (i) that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the goods in question were prohibited goods, or (ii) that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the goods were to be delivered or supplied to a prohibited destination or to, or to the ord

What would breach article 5(1)?

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. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the United Nations Arms Embargoes (Liberia, Somalia and the Former Yugoslavia) Order 1993.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

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

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (1993-07-22); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Powers of Arrest) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2005
Revoked on
1 January 2006
Made
20 July 1993
In force from
22 July 1993
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, made under the United Nations Act 1946, imposes restrictions pursuantto decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 713 of25th September 1991 which provided for States to “implement a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment” to the former Yugoslavia, and in Resolution No. 733 of 23rd January 1992 and Resolution No. 788 of 19th November 1992, which made similar provision in relation to Somalia and Liberia, respectively.

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