UK Offence Report

1 A person who— a fails without reasonable excuse to provide information, or to produce a document, in…

paragraph 6(1) of SCHEDULE of The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

6 1 A person who— a fails without reasonable excuse to provide information, or to produce a document, in response to a requirement in or under this Schedule; b provides information, or produces a document, which he or she knows is false in a material particular in relation to a requirement in or under this Schedule; c recklessly provides information, or produces a document, which is false in a material particular in response to a requirement in or under this Schedule; d fails without reasonable excuse to disclose information as required under paragraph (3), is guilty of an offence.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
making a false or misleading statement
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).

“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: recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

6 1 A person who— a fails without reasonable excuse to provide information, or to produce a document, in response to a requirement in or under this Schedule; b provides information, or produces a document, which he or she knows is false in a material particular in relation to a requirement in or under this Sch

What would breach paragraph 6(1) 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.

  1. Entering a figure on a form or return that is known to be wrong under the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008.
  2. Leaving out something the form asks for, where the omission is what makes the answer misleading.
  3. Producing a document to an official that has been altered since it was issued.

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 Landsbanki Freezing (Revocation) Order 2009
Revoked on
15 June 2009
Made
8 October 2008
In force from
8 October 2008
Extent
E+W+S+NI

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 is made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24) to give effect to a freeze on funds in relation to the Icelandic bank Landsbanki, including those owned, held or controlled in relation to that bank by the relevant Icelandic Authorities or the Government of Iceland. Article 3 provides that a specified person may request the reason why it is specified. Article 4 prohibits any person from making funds available to or for the benefit of a specified person. It also makes provision that a specified person must not deal with funds it controls, holds or owns. Article 5 makes it an offence to breach the prohibition on making funds available or to engage in activity knowing or intending that it will enable or facilitate the commission of such an offence, subject to a defence based on no knowledge or reasonable suspicion of the relevant circumstances. Article 6 provides for the Treasury to be able to grant licences to disapply the prohibitions and article 7 makes provision in relation to licensing procedure. Article 8 gives effect to the Schedule which makes provision about information and disclosure of information. Article 9 sets the penalties for offences under the Order, article 10 makes provision relating to criminal proceedings and article 11 relates to offences by bodies corporate. Article 12 makes provision about the service of notices. Article 13 confirms that the Order binds the Crown, but that the Crown is not to be held criminally liable in relation to the provisions of the Order. An Impact Assessment of the effect of this instrument on the costs to business has been prepared. It may be obtained from the Financial Stability Team, HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. It is also available on HM Treasury’s website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk ). Copies of the document have been placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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