Declaration as to goods: power of search

Q: Is article 13(4) of The Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004 a strict liability offence?

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

article 13(4) of The Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004

Revoked
Requires proof of a state of mind
Either way
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

4 Any person who under the provisions of this article makes
a declaration which to his knowledge is false in
a material particular or recklessly makes any declaration which is false in
a material particular shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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: making a false or misleading statement
Fault element: Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof: No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (recklessly).

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: recklessly.

What would breach article 13(4)?

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.

On these words an offence is committed where a person under the provisions of this article makes a declaration which to his knowledge is false in a material particular or recklessly makes any declaration which is false in a material particular.
Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004.
Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine: £5,000
Maximum prison (summary): 3 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.

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

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 Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2009
Revoked on: 19 November 2009
Made: 27 July 2004
In force from: 29 July 2004
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 Order applies to each of the British overseas territories listed in Schedule 1. It imposes restrictive measures in respect of Burma and the continuing serious violations of human rights in that country and the failure of its military authorities to enter into substantive discussions with the democratic movement concerning a process leading to national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy. These measures include the prohibition of the delivery or supply of arms and related material and equipment that might be used for internal repression to Burma, and the prohibition of making available funds, financial assets or economic resources to listed persons and the freezing of their funds, financial assets or economic resources. It gives effect to measures adopted by the European Union in Council Common Position 2004/423/CFSP.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of measuresarticle 10(1)
Customs powers to demand evidence of destination which goods reacharticle 11
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Governor under this Order…article 12
If for the purposes of obtaining any licence under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes…article 12(1)
Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Governor under this Order…article 12(2)
Declaration as to goods: power of searcharticle 13(3)
Provisions supplementary to articles 14 to 16article 17(3)
Supply of restricted goodsarticle 3
Exportation of restricted goods to Burmaarticle 4(3)
Provision of assistance, advice or trainingarticle 5
Use of ships, aircraft and vehicles: restricted goodsarticle 6(3)
Making funds, financial assets or economic resources available to any listed personarticle 7

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 Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 2004