UK Offence Report

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

article 8(2) of The Sierra Leone (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 1997

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

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

a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order and who fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence shall be guilty of an offence under this Order: Provided that no person shall be guilty of an offence under this paragraph where he proves that the condition with which he failed to comply was modified, otherwise than with his consent, by the Treasury after the doing of the act authorised by the licence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

ceedings for an offence in contravention of article 3 above 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 a person connected with Sierra Leone.

What would breach article 8(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 has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order and who fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Sierra Leone (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 1997, 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
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.

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 United Nations Arms Embargoes (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (Sierra Leone) Order 1998
Revoked on
26 June 1998
Made
30 October 1997
In force from
1 November 1997
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, gives effect in the Isle of Man to the imposition of restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution No. 1132 of 8th October 1997 on the export to Sierra Leone and the supply to persons in Sierra Leone of arms and related materiel, and petroleum and petroleum products. It restricts certain related activities including the carriage of prohibited goods in ships, aircraft and vehicles.

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 0.96.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.96 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