UK Offence Report

General interpretation

paragraph 22(1) of SCHEDULE 3 of The Anti-terrorism (Financial and Other Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

1 In this Schedule— “authorised officer” means

a constable,

a customs officer or an immigration officer, “cash” has the meaning given by paragraph 1, “criminal conduct” means conduct which constitutes an offence in the Territory, or would constitute an offence in the Territory if it occurred there, “forfeiture order” has the meaning given by paragraph 7, “interest” means— in relation to land, any legal estate and any equitable interest or power, and in relation to property other than land, includes any right (including

a right to possession of the property), “part”, in relation to property, includes

a portion, “property earmarked as terrorist property” is to be read in accordance with Part 5, “property obtained through terrorism” has the meaning given by paragraph 11, “terrorist cash” has the meaning given by paragraph 1, “value” means market value.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an customs officer
Conduct
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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 an customs officer 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 states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach paragraph 22(1) 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.

  1. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Anti-terrorism (Financial and Other Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
6 months

'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
Status not determined
Made
16 July 2002
In force from
1 August 2002
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order makes provision, for certain British overseas territories, corresponding to various provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which deal with the financing of terrorism and related matters. The Order extends to Anguilla, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St Helena and Dependencies, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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