UK Offence Report

ARTICLE 3 Grounds for Refusal of Extradition 1 A person shall not be extradited if the appropriate authority…

SCHEDULE of The Brazil (Extradition) Order 1997

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

ARTICLE 3 Grounds for Refusal of Extradition 1 A person shall not be extradited if the appropriate authority in the Requested State is satisfied: a that the offence for which his extradition is requested is an offence of a political character; or b that it is an offence under military law which is not also an offence under the general criminal law; or c that the request for extradition (though purporting to be made on account of an extradition offence as is specified in Article 2) has in fact been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person sought on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions; or d that the person sought might, if extradited, be prejudiced at his trial or be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions; or e that it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to extradite the person sought: i by reason of the trivial nature of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted; or ii in accordance with its laws, because of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it or to have become unlawfully at large, as the case may be; or iii because the accusation against him has not been made in good faith in the interests of justice; or f that, in the case of a request from the United Kingdom, a previous request based on the same facts has been made for the extradition of the person sought, and that request was denied.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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 states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by absence of consent (an element).

What would breach SCHEDULE?

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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Brazil (Extradition) Order 1997.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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.

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
8 April 1997
In force from
Not determined
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 applies Part III of the Extradition Act 1989, as amended, in the case of Brazil in accordance with the Treaty between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil which was concluded on 18th July 1995.

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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