UK Offence Report

Supply of restricted goods

article 3(1) of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 2001

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 Any person who, except under the authority of

a licence granted by the Treasury under this article or article 4—

a supplies or delivers;

b agrees to supply or deliver; or

c does any act calculated to promote the supply or delivery of, restricted goods to any person in Afghanistan 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 goods in question were to be supplied or delivered to

a person in Afghanistan.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
selling or supplying something the instrument restricts
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.

The defence, as drafted

Afghanistan 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 goods in question were to be supplied or delivered to a person in Afghanistan.

What would breach article 3(1)?

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. Selling the goods under the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 2001 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
  2. Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
  3. Offering for sale counts as well as selling: displaying stock is enough where the provision reaches an offer.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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) (Isle of Man) Order 2002
Revoked on
14 February 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, imposes in the Isle of Man restrictions pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution 1333 of 19th December 2000. The Order restricts the delivery or supply of arms and related matériêl and the provision of related technical assistance and training to Afghanistan, and restricts the delivery and supply of acetic anhydride to Afghanistan. It also prohibits the making of funds available to Usama bin Laden and his associates. The Order also imposes restrictions on flights destined for or originating from Afghanistan to take off from, land in, or fly over the Isle of Man 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 Isle of Man 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. The Order revokes previous Orders in Council which applied United Nations sanctions concerning Afghanistan to the Isle of Man.

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