UK Offence Report

Any person who, without reasonable excuse, discloses information or a document in contravention of paragraph…

paragraph 3(2) of SCHEDULE of The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds) Regulations 2001

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

2 Any person who, without reasonable excuse, discloses information or

a document in contravention of paragraph (1) is 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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); other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

The defence, as drafted

2 Any person who, without reasonable excuse, discloses information or a document in contravention of paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence.

What would breach paragraph 3(2) of SCHEDULE?

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. On these words an offence is committed where a person discloses information or a document in contravention of paragraph (1).
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds) Regulations 2001, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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.

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 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds) (Revocation) Regulations 2015
Revoked on
19 February 2015
Made
15 January 2001
In force from
5 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations provide that breaches of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2488 of 2000 (“the EC Regulation”) are to be criminal offences. The provisions in question are: Article 1, which provides for the freezing of funds belonging to Mr Milosevic and persons associated with him, and prohibits the making of funds available to or for the benefit of those persons; Article 2(1), which prohibits the knowing and intentional participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the provisions of the EC Regulation; and Article 3, which requires banks, insurance companies and others to provide to the Treasury or the Bank of England and to the European Commission information which would facilitate compliance with the EC Regulation, but requires such information to be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received. Regulation 3 of these Regulations makes it an offence to provide false information in connection with a request for an exemption under Article 4(3) of the EC Regulation. These Regulations make provision for information to be requested by or on behalf of the Treasury or the Bank of England for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the EC Regulation. Failure to provide such information, the provision of false information or the suppression of information is made a criminal offence. Unauthorised disclosure of information acquired under the Schedule is also made a criminal offence. Provision is made with respect to penalties and proceedings for offences under the Regulations. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds and Prohibition on Investment) Regulations 1999 are revoked. Those Regulations gave effect to a previous EC measure imposing sanctions in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1294/99) which is repealed by Article 9 of the EC Regulation.

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