Prohibition of Flights

Q: Is article 3(3) of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1999 a strict liability offence?

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 an operator meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

article 3(3) of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1999

Revoked
Strict liability
Either way
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 If any aircraft is used in contravention of the provisions of this article, then the operator and the commander of the aircraft shall be guilty of an offence against this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: an operator
Conduct: contravening a requirement of the instrument
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 an operator 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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach article 3(3)?

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 the thing the provision prohibits under the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1999, whatever the reason for doing it.
Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: £5,000
Maximum prison (summary): 6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment): 6 months

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.
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
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: Revoked
Revoked by: The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001
Revoked on: 16 February 2001
Made: 24 November 1999
In force from: 26 November 1999
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 Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in resolution 1267 of 15th October 1999 by prohibiting any aircraft from taking off from or landing in the territories specified in Schedule 2 if it is owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban. It also freezes assets of the Taliban or any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Application of article 4article 5(2)
If for the purposes of obtaining any licence under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes…article 6(1)
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Governor under this Order…article 6(2)
Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…paragraph 3 of SCHEDULE 1

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1999 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1999