UK Offence Report

A person who, having acted under the authority of a licence granted under these Regulations, fails to comply…

regulation 4(3) of The Burma (Sale, Supply, Export, Technical Assistance, Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2006

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

3 A person who, having acted under the authority of

a licence granted under these Regulations, 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 modified by the Secretary of State; and

b the alleged failure to comply would not have been

a failure had the licence not been so modified; and

c the licence was modified after the doing of the act authorised by the licence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 4(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 Burma (Sale, Supply, Export, Technical Assistance, Financing and Financial Assistance) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2006 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 (Burma) Order 2008 (revoked)
Revoked on
23 April 2008
Made
9 October 2006
In force from
11 October 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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations make provision in respect of Burma for offences, penalties and enforcement in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No. 817/2006 of 2006 (“the EC Regulation”) which repeals and replaces Council Regulation (EC) No.798/2004 (“the 2004 EC Regulation”). Regulation 2 revokes the Burma (Sale, Supply, Export, Technical Assistance, Financing and Financial Assistance and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties and Licences) Regulations 2004 which made provision in relation to the 2004 EC Regulation. Regulation 3 provides for criminal offences in relation to the prohibitions in Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Regulation. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) provide offences for breach of the prohibitions on technical assistance, financing and financial assistance related to military activities, and on activities circumventing these prohibitions. Sub-paragraphs (d) to (g) provide offences for breach of the prohibitions on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment in Annex I of the EC Regulation, connected technical assistance, financing or financial assistance, and on activities circumventing these prohibitions. Regulation 4 provides for the licensing of the activities set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Regulation. It also provides for an offence in connection with the provision of false statements related to the obtaining of a licence. Regulation 5 provides penalties in respect of criminal offences created by these Regulations. Regulation 6 provides for the enforcement of these Regulations by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. A 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