UK Offence Report

Provisions supplementary to articles 19 to 21

article 22(3) of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 Each of the following persons shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, that is to say: a a master of a ship who disobeys any direction given under article 19(2)(a); b a master of a ship or a charterer or an operator or a commander of an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who: i without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any request made under article 19, 20 or 21 by any person empowered to make it, or ii furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in a material particular or recklessly furnishes any document or information which is false in a material particular to such a person in response to such a request; c a master or a member of a crew of a ship or a charterer or an operator or a commander or a member of a crew of an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who wilfully obstructs any person (or any person acting under the authority of any such person) in the exercise of his powers under article 19, 20 or 21.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 master
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly, wilfully).

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: wilfully, recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who: i without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any request made under article 19, 20 or 21 by any person empowered to make it, or ii furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in a material particular or recklessly furnis

What would breach article 22(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.

  1. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

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

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 Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002
Revoked on
25 January 2002
Made
14 February 2001
In force from
16 February 2001
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, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 1. It imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in its Resolution 1333 of 19th December 2000, on the delivery or supply of arms and related matériel, the provision of technical assistance and training, and the supply of acetic anhydride to Afghanistan. The Order also restricts the taking off from, landing in or flying over any of the specified territories of flights destined for or originating from Afghanistan. It also prohibits the making available of funds to Usama bin Laden and his associates, and prohibits the establishment or maintenance of Taliban offices or the carrying on of any business by Ariana Afghan Airlines. In addition, the Order imposes restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in its Resolution 1267 of 15th October 1999 by prohibiting any aircraft from taking off from or landing in the specified territories 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 them. This Order revokes the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 1999.

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 0.92.

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