UK Offence Report

Transitional provisions

article 6(3) of The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions)(Amendment) Order 2004

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

3 Any person who contravenes

a direction given under article

4 of the 2000 Order is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

a on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding seven years, or

a fine, or both;

b on summary conviction to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding six months, or

a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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.

What would breach article 6(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. On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes a direction given under article 4 of the 2000 Order.
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions)(Amendment) Order 2004, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined
Maximum prison (on indictment)
6 months

expressed as the statutory maximum (the prescribed sum): the same words mean £5,000 in England and Wales and £10,000 in Scotland.

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
10 June 2004
In force from
13 July 2004
Extent
E+W+S+NI

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, made under the United Nations Act 1946, amends the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000 (the “2000 Order”) which gave effect to certain aspects of the sanctions imposed against Iraq by the United Nations in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) of 22nd May 2003; and revokes various superseded provisions of the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003. Article 5(2) of the Order clarifies the territorial extent of the 2000 Order. Article 5(3)(v) amends the definition of “Sanctions Committee” in the 2000 Order to take account of the fact that on 24th November 2003 the United Nations adopted a further resolution which established a new Committee for the purposes of identifying persons for the purposes of certain provisions of the resolutions adopted on 22nd May 2003. The remaining provisions of article 5(3) amend or insert various other definitions in the 2000 Order in consequence of the changes made by the rest of article 5 and to give effect to guidance issued by the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 661 (1990) on the meaning of terms used in Resolution 1483 (2003). The remaining provisions of article 5 amend the 2000 Order to make improvements in the operation of that Order. In particular, provision has been made for persons listed at UN level to automatically fall within the UK sanctions regime without the need for a direction to be given by the Treasury as well as to clarify the powers that the Treasury have to direct that funds are to be frozen. Article 6 makes transitional provisions in respect of directions given by the Treasury, and funds covered by notices published, prior to the coming into force of this Order.

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