UK Offence Report

Powers of airport operator

article 13(3) of The Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs an airport operator, his servants or agents acting in accordance with the provisions of this article, or refuses or fails within

a reasonable time to comply with

a requirement by any such persons made in accordance with paragraph 2(c) of this article, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

3 Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs an airport operator, his servants or agents acting in accordance with the provisions of this article, or refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with a requirement by any such persons made in accordance with paragraph 2(c) of this artic

What would breach article 13(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) 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
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 (2001-02-16); 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
Revoked
Revoked by
The Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002
Revoked on
25 January 2002
Made
14 February 2001
In force from
16 February 2001
Extent
E+W+S+NI

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 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 related technical assistance and training, and the supply of acetic anydride to Afghanistan. It also imposes restrictions on flights taking off from, landing in or flying over the United Kingdom if they are destined for or originate in Afghanistan. The Order also prohibits the making of funds available 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 United Kingdom 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 the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) 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