UK Offence Report

Provisions supplementary to articles 14 to 16

article 17(3) of The Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 Each of the following persons shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, that is to say: a a master of a ship who disobeys any direction given under article 14(2)(a); b a master of a ship or a charterer or an operator or a commander of an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who: i without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any request made under article 14, 15 or 16 by any person empowered to make it, or ii furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in a material particular or recklessly furnishes any document or information which is false in a material particular to such a person in response to such a request; c a master or a member of a crew of a ship or a charterer or an operator or a commander or a member of a crew of an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who wilfully obstructs any person (or any person acting under the authority of any such person) in the exercise of his powers under article 14, 15 or 16.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 master
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: wilfully, recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

an aircraft or an operator or a driver of a vehicle who: i without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any request made under article 14, 15 or 16 by any person empowered to make it, or ii furnishes any document or information which to his knowledge is false in a material particular or recklessly furnis

What would breach article 17(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Burma (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2004.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

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.

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 note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

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

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