UK Offence Report

Supply of restricted goods

article 3(2) of The Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

2 Any British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen, British Overseas citizen, British subject, British National (Overseas), British protected person, or body incorporated or constitued under the law of any part of the United Kingdom who in any place outside the United Kingdom—

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

a listed person 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 listed person.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 listed 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 listed 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

isted person 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 listed person.

What would breach article 3(2)?

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 listed person in any place outside the United Kingdom— a supplies or delivers.
  2. Selling the goods under the Al-Qa'ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
  3. Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
  4. Offering for sale counts as well as selling: displaying stock is enough where the provision reaches an offer.

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 (2002-01-25); 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 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Powers of Arrest) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2005
Revoked on
1 January 2006
Made
23 January 2002
In force from
25 January 2002
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, gives effect to Resolution 1390, adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on 16th January 2002. In view of the changing situation in Afghanistan, Resolution 1390 continued, amended or terminated as appropriate certain provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1267, adopted on 15th October 1999, and 1333, adopted on 19th December 2000 which imposed sanctions in relation to Usama bin Laden, the Taliban and the territory of Afghanistan. The effect of Resolution 1390 is to require States to prohibit the delivery or supply of arms and related matériel and the provision of related technical assistance and training to Usama bin Laden, Al-Qa'ida, the Taliban and their associates as designated in a list by the Security Council. It also prohibits the making of funds available to those persons. The list of persons designated by the Security Council is to be found at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Afghanistan/Afg_list_eng.htm. This Order revokes the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001 and the Afghanistan (United Nations Measures) Order 2001.

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