UK Offence Report

3 Any person who, having acted under the authority of a licence granted under this Regulation, fails to…

regulation 3(3) of The Liberia (Technical Assistance and Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 Any person who, having acted under the authority of

a licence granted under this Regulation, fails to comply with any of the requirements or conditions to which the licence is subject shall be guilty of an offence, unless

a the licence had been previously modified by the Secretary of State without that person’s consent, and

b the alleged failure to comply would not have been

a failure had the licence not been so modified.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 comply with a notice or direction
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 regulation 3(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. Being served with a notice under the Liberia (Technical Assistance and Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  2. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  3. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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 Export Control (Liberia) Order 2006
Revoked on
27 July 2006
Made
18 February 2004
In force from
26 February 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.

These Regulations provide for criminal offences in respect of conduct prohibited under Council Regulation (EC) 234/2004 (“the EC Regulation”). Regulation 2 creates penalties in respect of the prohibition over the provision of a Article 2(a), prohibiting the grant, sale, supply or transfer to any person, entity or body in, of for use in, Liberia of technical assistance related to military activities, and to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of arms and related material of all types; and b Article 2(b), prohibiting the provision of financing or financial assistance related to military activities for any sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and related material, to any person, entity or body in, or for use in Liberia; and c Article 2(c), prohibiting the participation, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to promote the transactions referred to in Article 2(a) and 2(b). Regulation 3 provides for licensing of the above transactions; and regulation 4 provides for enforcement and penalties for breach of the EC Regulation. 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