UK Offence Report

Supply of restricted goods

article 3(1) of The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2003

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 Any person who, except under the authority of

a licence granted by the Governor under this article or article 4 —

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 any person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 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 person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
selling or supplying something the instrument restricts
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (knowingly) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

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: the offence itself carries no fault word, but a duty it criminalises by cross-reference uses knowingly; which element that governs was not determined.

The defence, as drafted

f the Congo 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 person in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

What would breach article 3(1)?

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. Selling the goods under the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2003 where the instrument prohibits the sale outright.
  2. Supplying without carrying out a check the instrument requires first, even where the sale would otherwise be lawful.
  3. 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
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
Status not determined
Made
8 October 2003
In force from
10 October 2003
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 applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 1. It gives effect to Resolution 1493, adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on 28th July 2003, which prohibits the delivery or supply of arms and related materiél and the provision of assistance, advice and training related to military activities to the territory of North and South Kivu and Ituri in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who are not party to the Global and All Inclusive Agreement on the Transition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (signed in Pretoria on 17 December 2002), and to a Common Position adopted by the Council of the European Union on 17th September 2003 which applies the measures in Resolution 1493 to the whole of the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

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