Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…

Q: Is paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE 3 of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 2001 a strict liability offence?

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

paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE 3 of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) (Isle of Man) Order 2001

Revoked
Requires proof of a state of mind
Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and tax

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

5 Any person who—
a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within
a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or
b furnishes any information or produces any documents 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; or
c otherwise wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under this Schedule; or
d with intent to evade the provisions of this Schedule, destroys, mutilates, defaces, secretes or removes any document, shall be guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: 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, with intent to).

“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, with intent to, recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

5 Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or b furnishes any information or produc

What would breach paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE 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.

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

Penalty

Mode of trial: Not determined
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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.
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 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 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

Facilitation of activities prohibited under article 7, 8 or 9(7)article 10
A relevant institution is guilty of an offence if— a it knows or suspects that a person who is, or has been…article 11(1)
Prohibition of flightsarticle 12(2)
Powers of airport operatorarticle 13(3)
Taliban officesarticle 14
Ariana Afghan Airlinesarticle 15(1)
Ariana Afghan Airlinesarticle 15(2)
Ariana Afghan Airlinesarticle 15(3)
Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reacharticle 16
If for the purposes of obtaining any licence under this Order any person— a makes any statement or furnishes…article 17(1)
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order…article 17(2)
Declaration as to goods: powers of searcharticle 18(3)

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) (Isle of Man) Order 2001 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and taxOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 2001