UK Offence Report

Offences in connection with applications for licences, conditions attaching to licences, etc.

article 10(2) of The Former Yugoslavia (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1994

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

2 Any person who has done any act under the authority of

a licence granted by the Governor or with permission granted by or on behalf of the Governor under this Order and who fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence or permission 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to do something the instrument requires
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

as or a body described in article 4(2)(b)(i) 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 he was so acting. 4 In the case of proceedings for an offence in contravention of article 5(1) of this Order, it shall be a defence for the accused person to prove that he did not know and had no reason t

What would breach article 10(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 fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence or permission.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Former Yugoslavia (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1994, by the time it requires it to be done.
  3. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

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

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
17 October 1994
In force from
19 October 1994
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, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 2. It places restrictions on the export of goods to the Bosnian Serb controlled areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the United Nations Protected Areas of the Republic of Croatia. In addition this Order imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in resolution 942 (1994) of 23 September 1994 on the carrying on of economic activities by persons connected with the Bosnian Serb controlled areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the provision of services for businesses carried on in those areas. The Order also places restrictions on certain actions making available or otherwise transferring funds or other financial assets or resources to or for the benefit of persons connected with the Bosnian Serb controlled areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina . The Order further amends the Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1195) to correct two references therein.

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