Failure to comply with licence conditions

Q: Is article 5(1) of The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003 a strict liability offence?

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.

article 5(1) of The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003

Status not determined
Strict liability
Either way
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

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 Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2 ) below, any person who— a has done any act under the authority of a licence granted under article 2 or a Community Licence; and b fails to comply with any condition attaching to that licence, shall be 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: failing to do something the instrument requires
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 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 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; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach article 5(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.

Not doing what the provision requires under the Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003, by the time it requires it to be done.
Doing it, but not in the manner or to the standard the instrument specifies.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment): 2 years

'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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014
Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.
Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

Prosecution figures

The Ministry of Justice records offences under this instrument against offence code 9521 — 09521 - Making misleading application for a Licence under Article 2 or a Community licence (Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003). That code may cover several provisions of the instrument, so a count against it is not a count of prosecutions under this provision alone.

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have their own code in the MoJ’s Outcomes by Offence data tool. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status: Status not determined
Made: 17 November 2003
In force from: 1 May 2004
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 Order replaces the remaining provisions of S.I. 1992/3092 that have been revoked by the Export Control Act 1992 (c. 28). A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Order.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Export Of Objects Of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003 Commons · 18 November 2003 · The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
I have today laid The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003 (SI 2003/2759) made under the auspices of the Export Control Act 2002 before Parliament. In addition to this the Statutory Guidance required under the same Act about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers on objects of cultural interest was also laid.

Other offences in the same instrument

Misleading applications for licences etcarticle 4(1)
Failure to comply with licence conditionsarticle 5(3)
Customs powers to demand evidence of destinationarticle 6(1)

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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 2003