UK Offence Report

Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reach

regulation 6 of The Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 Any exporter of goods shall, if so required by the Commissioners, furnish within such time as they may allow proof to their satisfaction that the goods have reached either— a a destination to which they were authorised to be exported by a licence granted for the purposes of these Regulations, or b a destination to which their export was not prohibited by these Regulations, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

ction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale 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 regulation 6?

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 Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996 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
£2,500
Standard scale
Level 4
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (revoked)
Revoked on
7 March 1997
Made
25 October 1996
In force from
15 November 1996
Extent
Not stated

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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations revoke and replace the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1995, as amended. They give effect to certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 3381/94 on the control of exports of dual-use goods, and make certain additional provisions relating to the export of dual-use goods. The changes of significance from the 1995 Regulations are— a Annexes I and IV to Council Decision No 94/942/CFSP on the control of exports of dual-use goods, as amended by Council Decision No. 96/613/CFSP, which are referred to in the Council Regulation and in these Regulations, are not reproduced as Schedules to these Regulations (they were reproduced as Schedules 1 and 2 to the 1995 Regulations); b dual-use goods which the exporter has grounds for suspecting might be used for purposes connected with weapons of mass destruction are no longer prohibited to be exported to other Member States of the European Community (their export outside the Community is prohibited by regulation 4(2)(c), and their export to another Member State for further export outside the Community can be prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Council Regulation and regulation 4(2)(d) of these Regulations); c the obligation to keep and produce documents relating to export licence applications contained in regulation 10(2) of the 1995 Regulations is limited in regulation 10(2) of these Regulations to documents relating to applications for Community Licences (that is, authorisations required by the Council Regulation); and d separate licences are required for the export of technology in entries 1E950, 9E990, 9E991 and 9E993 as they are already required for the export of technology in entries 3E990, 5E990 and 8E990. A number of consequential and drafting amendments of no substance have been made. Copies of the issue of the Official Journal of the European Communities which contains the current version of Annexes I and IV to the Council Decision (O.J. No. L.278, 30.10.96) can be obtained from HMSO.

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