Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…

paragraph 3 of SCHEDULE 3 of The Democratic Republic of the Congo (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2005

• Revoked
• Requires proof of a state of mind
• 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The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.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

3 Any person who—

a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within

a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or

b furnishes any information or produces any document 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; or

c otherwise wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under this Schedule; or

d with intent to evade the provisions of this Schedule, destroys, mutilates, defaces, secretes or removes any document, 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

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, with intent to).

“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, with intent to, recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

3 Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or b furnishes any information or produc

What would breach paragraph 3 of SCHEDULE 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2005.
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

Not determined

Maximum fine

Unlimited

Maximum prison (summary)

2 years

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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.

• 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2015 (revoked)

Revoked on

8 July 2015

Made

7 June 2005

In force from

9 June 2005

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, made under the United Nations Act 1946, applies to each of the territories specified in Schedule 1. The instrument gives effect in part to Resolution 1596 (2005) adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on 18th April 2005. UNSCR 1596 (2005) amongst other things imposes financial sanctions against persons designated as acting in violation of the arms embargo by the Sanctions Committee established by Resolution 1533 (2004).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

• Making funds available to a designated personarticle 3
• Freezing of fundsarticle 4(10)
• Freezing of fundsarticle 4(9)
• Facilitation of activities prohibited under article 3 or 4(9)article 5
• Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of measuresarticle 6(1)
• If for the purposes of obtaining any licence under this Order any person makes any statement or furnishes…article 7(1)
• Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Governor under this Order…article 7(2)
• No person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph (2) where he proves that the condition with which he…article 7(3)

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 Democratic Republic of the Congo (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2005 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
• International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
• Offences created in 2005