UK Offence Report

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

paragraph 5 of SCHEDULE 3 of The Belarus (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2006

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

5 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

5 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 5 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 Belarus (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2006.
  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
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 Belarus (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2011 (revoked)
Revoked on
14 October 2011
Made
19 July 2006
In force from
21 July 2006
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 members of the leadership and certain officials of Belarus responsible for violations of electoral standards and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition in Belarus. These measures prohibit making available funds, financial assets or economic resources to listed persons and the freezing of their funds, financial assets or economic resources. The Order gives effect to measures adopted by the European Union in Council Common Position 2006/276/CFSP as amended by Council Common Position 2006/362/CFSP, which were given effect in the European Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

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