UK Offence Report

Use of ships, aircraft and vehicles: restricted goods, technical assistance and training

article 6(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The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.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 If any ship, aircraft or vehicle is used in contravention of paragraph (1) of this article then:

a in the case of

a ship registered in the Territory or any aircraft so registered, the owner and the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

b in the case of any other ship or aircraft, the person to whom the ship or aircraft is for the time being chartered and, if he is such

a person as is referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (2) of this article, the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

c in the case of

a vehicle, the operator of the vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Afghanistan to any destination therein.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 owner
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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 an owner 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

he vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, unless he proves that he did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Afghanistan to any destination therein.

What would breach article 6(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. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2001, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. 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)
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