UK Offence Report

Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reach

article 7 of The Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) Order 1993

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

7 Any exporter or any shipper of goods specified in Schedule 1 to this Order which have been exported from any of the Channel Islands shall, if so required by, in the case of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Chief Revenue Officer or, in the case of the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Agent or Deputy Agent of the Impôts or any person duly authorised by the Agent of the Impôts, 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 under this Order 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

The defence, as drafted

to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Order 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 7?

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 Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Channel Islands) Order 1993 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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

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.

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 September 1993
In force from
1 October 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 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. 864 of 15th September 1993, on the export to Angola and the supply to persons in Angola of arms and related material, and petroleum and petroleum products. It restricts certain related activities including the carriage of prohibited goods in ships, aircraft and vehicles.

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