UK Offence Report

Regulation 8(2) of the principal Regulations shall be replaced by the following:– No person shall be guilty…

regulation 4 of The Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1999 (revoked)

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

4 Regulation 8(2) of the principal Regulations shall be replaced by the following:– No person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) above where– the licence had been previously modified without that person’s consent in the case of

a licence, by the Secretary of State, or in the case of

a Community Licence, by the Secretary of State or other competent authority who granted that Community Licence; the alleged failure to comply would not have been

a failure had the licence not been so modified, and that person proves that the goods in relation to which he has failed to comply with the condition had, at the time the condition was modified, been exported from the United Kingdom in the case of

a licence or from the European Community in the case of

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

What would breach regulation 4?

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. Not doing what the provision requires under the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1999, by the time it requires it to be done.
  2. Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

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

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
23 June 1999
In force from
14 July 1999
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

The Dual Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996 (“the principal Regulations”) made in implementation of and pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 3381/94 on the control of exports of dual-use goods (OJ No. L367 31.12.94, p. 1), is amended as follows: Regulation 2 provides that the definition of “exporter” has the same meaning found in Council Regulation (EC) No 3381/94 on the control of exports of dual-use goods to the extent that that definition applies. Regulation 3 introduces a requirement that all licences issued by the Secretary of State under regulation 4(3) of the principal Regulations shall be in writing. Regulation 4 corrects an ambiguity as to who carries the burden of proof with respect to the exception to the offence set out in regulation 8(1), namely that it is for the prosecution to establish whether or not the licence has been modified without the consent of the licensee and whether or not any modification made was material to the offence that is charged. Paragraph (c) makes clear that it is for the defendant to prove that the export happened before the modification took effect. Regulation 5(2) amends the controls in entry 1C950 by prohibiting the export only of mixtures containing more than the prescribed weight of a chemical specified in entry 1C350 of Annex I to Council Decision 94/942. removing an exception to the controls. Mixtures which contain a controlled chemical in such a way that it cannot be easily recovered by standard processes are now controlled. Regulation 5(3) removes the prohibition on the export of specified goods to Libya.

Read the full note and every offence in this 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