UK Offence Report

Application of Articles 6, 7, 9 and 10

article 11(2) of The Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1994

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

2 Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of this article, any person specified in paragraph (1) of this article who contravenes the provisions of article 6, 7(3) and (4), 9 or 10 of this Order shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 a person 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

for an offence in contravention of article 6 of this Order it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the goods in question were to be supplied or delivered to or to the order of a person connected with Haiti. 4 In the case of proceedings for an offence in contravention of article 7(3) or (4) of this Orde

What would breach article 11(2)?

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. On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes the provisions of article 6, 7(3) and (4), 9 or 10 of this Order.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1994, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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 (1994-05-23); 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
18 May 1994
In force from
23 May 1994
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, re-enacts with certain modifications, the provisions of the Haiti (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/ 1784) and imposes further restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 917 of 6th May 1994, on the export of goods to Haiti and the supply of goods to persons connected with Haiti, and on the importation of goods therefrom. It restricts certain related activities including the carriage of prohibited goods in ships, aircraft and vehicles. The Order also prohibits aircraft, except for scheduled passenger aircraft, from taking off from, landing in or overflying the United Kingdom if they are destined for, or have taken off from, Haiti. It also restricts the making of payments under any bond in respect of a contract the performance of which is unlawful by virtue of the Order, and prohibits making 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