UK Offence Report

Breaches of the EC Regulation

regulation 2(2) of The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds and Economic Resources of Indictees) Regulations 2004 (revoked)

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

2 Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with Article 7(1) of the EC Regulation is 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised); other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

The defence, as drafted

2 Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with Article 7(1) of the EC Regulation is guilty of an offence.

What would breach regulation 2(2)?

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 without reasonable excuse fails to comply with Article 7(1) of the EC Regulation.
  2. Not doing what the provision requires under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Freezing of Funds and Economic Resources of Indictees) Regulations 2004, by the time it requires it to be done.
  3. 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
£5,000
Standard scale
Level 5
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
3 months

this is the level 5 value when the instrument came into force (2004-10-19); the standard scale is keyed to the date the offence was committed, and for conduct today the same words mean an unlimited fine.

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
18 October 2004
In force from
19 October 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 note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations provide that breaches of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1763/2004 of 11th October 2004 (“the EC Regulation”) are criminal offences. The provisions in question are— a Article 2(1) which provides for the freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to or owned or held by persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia as listed in Annex I to the EC Regulation; b Article 2(2) which prohibits the making available of funds or economic resources directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of those persons listed in Annex I to the EC Regulation; c Article 2(3) which prohibits the knowing and intentional participation in activities the object or effect of which is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent the prohibitions in Article 2(1) and (2); and d Article 7(1) which requires all persons to provide immediately to the Treasury or the Bank of England and to the European Commission any information which would facilitate compliance with the EC Regulation. Regulation 3 makes it an offence to provide false information in connection with a request for an authorisation under Articles 3 and 4 of the EC Regulation. Regulation 4 and the Schedule make provision for information to be requested by or on behalf of the Treasury or the Bank of England for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the EC Regulation. Failure to provide such information, the provision of false information or the suppression of information is a criminal offence. Unauthorised disclosure of information acquired under the Schedule is also a criminal offence. Regulation 5 makes provision with respect to penalties and proceedings for offences under these Regulations. A full regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument, as it has no impact on the costs of business.

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