UK Offence Report

Provision of technical advice, assistance or training relating to military activities

article 5 of The Somalia (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

5 Any person who, except under the authority of

a licence granted by the Governor under this article, directly or indirectly provides to any person in Somalia any—

a technical advice;

b financial or other assistance; or

c training, related to military activities 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 technical advice, financial or other assistance, or training in question was to be provided to

a person in Somalia.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

activities 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 technical advice, financial or other assistance, or training in question was to be provided to a person in Somalia.

What would breach article 5?

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 Somalia (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

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 Somalia (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012 (revoked)
Revoked on
9 January 2013
Made
22 October 2002
In force from
24 October 2002
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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 1. It prohibits the direct or indirect supply to Somalia of technical advice, financial and other assistance, and training related to military activities, pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution 1425 of 22nd July 2002. The opportunity has been taken to include in this Order the provisions of the United Nations Arms Embargoes (Dependant Territories) Order 1995 in so far as that Order relates to the arms embargo imposed on Somalia pursuant to decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations in Resolution Nos. 733 of 23rd January 1992 and 1356 of 19th June 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