No person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph (b) of article 3 where he did not know, or had no…
paragraph 3 of SCHEDULE of The Export Control (Democratic Republic of Congo) (Amendment) Order 2008
- Status not determined
- Strict liability
- International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions
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
3 After article 3, insert— 3A No person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph (b) of article
3 where he did not know, or had no reason to suspect, that his actions would contravene the prohibition at article 2(b) of the Regulation. .
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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
- contravening a requirement of the instrument
- 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.
What would breach paragraph 3 of SCHEDULE?
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.
- Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Export Control (Democratic Republic of Congo) (Amendment) Order 2008, whatever the reason for doing it.
- Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.
Penalty
- Mode of trial
- Not determined
- Maximum fine
- Not determined
- Maximum prison (summary)
- Not determined
no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.
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.
-
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
- Status not determined
- Made
- 22 January 2008
- In force from
- 24 January 2008
- 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 Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.
This Order implements in part Council Regulation (EC) 1377/2007 which amends Council Regulation (EC) 889/2005. Council Regulation (EC) 1377/2007 was adopted pursuant to Council Common Position 2007/654/CFSP integrating the measures contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1771 (2007). Council Regulation (EC) 1377/2007 also makes provision for recent developments in sanctions practice regarding the identification of competent authorities, liability for infringements and jurisdiction. It clarifies that the prohibition set out in Article 2(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 889/2005 (provision of financing or financial assistance related to military activities etc) shall not give rise to any liability, if the person concerned did not know, nor have any reasonable cause to suspect, that his actions would infringe the prohibition. 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
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 Export Control (Democratic Republic of Congo) (Amendment) Order 2008 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
- International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
- Offences created in 2008