UK Offence Report

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

article 9(2) of The Eritrea and Ethiopia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

for an offence in contravention of article 3 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 Eritrea or Ethiopia. 4 In the case of proceedings for an offence in contravention of article 6 of this Order it shall be a defence for

What would breach article 9(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 Secretary of State under this Order and who fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the Eritrea and Ethiopia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000, 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
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2000-06-16); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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
14 June 2000
In force from
16 June 2000
Extent
E+W+S+NI

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, imposes restrictions, pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in its resolution 1298 of 17th May 2000, on the delivery and supply of arms and related matériel, and on the provision of related technical assistance and training, to Eritrea and Ethiopia.

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