Penalties and Proceedings

article 10(5) of The United Nations Arms Embargoes (Somalia, Liberia and Rwanda) (Isle of Man) Order 1996

Status not determined
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Summary only
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

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

5 Any person guilty of an offence under any of sub-paragraphs (a), (b)(i) or (c) of paragraph (11) of article
8 of this Order or sub-paragraph (a) or (c) of paragraph
5 of the Schedule to this Order shall be liable on summary conviction to custody for
a term not exceeding six months or to
a fine not exceeding level
5 on the standard scale or to both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: breaching the provision
Fault element: Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof: Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (recklessly) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

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: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses recklessly; which element that governs was not determined.

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— a that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the goods in question were prohibited goods; or b 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 order of

What would breach article 10(5)?

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.

Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the United Nations Arms Embargoes (Somalia, Liberia and Rwanda) (Isle of Man) Order 1996.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine: Not determined
Standard scale: Level 5
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

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.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014
Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 19 December 1996
In force from: 21 December 1996
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 Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, gives effect in the Isle of Man to the imposition of restrictions pursuant to decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 733 of 23rd January 1992 which provided for States to “implement a general and complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment” in relation to Somalia, Resolution No. 788 of 19th November 1992 which made similar provision in relation to Liberia, and Resolution No. 918 of 17th May 1994 which made similar provision in relation to Rwanda.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Deliveries and supplies of certain goods to a prohibited destinationarticle 3(3)
Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reacharticle 4
If for the purpose of obtaining any licence under this Order any person— a makes any statement or furnishes…article 5(1)
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order…article 5(2)
Declaration as to goods: powers of searcharticle 6(2)
Declaration as to goods: powers of searcharticle 6(3)
Carriage of certain goods destined for a prohibited destinationarticle 7(3)
Investigation, etc. of suspected ships, aircraft and vehiclesarticle 8(11)
Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE

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 0.72.

Basis: the provision states liability on summary conviction
Confidence: 0.72 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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The United Nations Arms Embargoes (Somalia, Liberia and Rwanda) (Isle of Man) Order 1996 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1996