UK Offence Report

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

article 11(2) of The Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1998

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

The defence, as drafted

for an offence in contravention of article 4 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 the goods in question were to be supplied or delivered to a person in Angola. 4 In the case of proceedings for an offence in contravention of article 4 of this Order it shall be a defence for the accused

What would breach article 11(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 Governor under this Order and who fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1998, 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

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
21 July 1998
In force from
23 July 1998
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 imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in resolution 1173 of 12th June 1998 on the export to Angola and the supply to persons in Angola of equipment used in mining or mining services, and motorised vehicles or watercraft or their spare parts or ground or waterbourne transportation services; and on the import of diamonds from Angola. It restricts certain related activities including the carriage of those goods destined for and originating from, respectively, Angola in ships, aircraft and vehicles. It also places restrictions on certain actions making available or otherwise transferring funds and financial resources to or for the benefit of UNITA as an organisation or of senior officials or adult members of their immediate families. The order amends the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1997 to correct certain references therein. This Order does not affect the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1993 nor the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1997 other than as described above.

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