UK Offence Report

Amendment of the principal Order

article 13 of The North Korea (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2009 (revoked)

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

4 A judicial authority must authorise the detention of the person for

a further period not exceeding

72 hours if satisfied—

a that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is guilty of an offence under article 3(3) or 5(3),

b that all reasonable steps are being taken to ensure that the person is brought as soon as is practicable to the United Kingdom to be dealt with in respect of the offence, and

c that the detention of the person is necessary for one or more of the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (5).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
an judicial authority
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Mixed — some elements strict, some not
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove the conduct, and - for those elements the provision qualifies (intentionally, recklessly) - the state of mind it names. The remaining elements carry no fault requirement, so they are strict.

“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: no fault word in the offence-creating words, but the surrounding provision uses intentionally, recklessly, reasonably practicable - which element it governs was not determined; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

nder this Schedule. 2 It is an offence for a person to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement made by an authorised officer in the performance of those functions. 3 It is an offence for a person, in purporting to give information required by an authorised officer for the performance of those functions, to: a make a stateme

What would breach article 13?

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 North Korea (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2009.
  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 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.

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
9 December 2009
In force from
11 December 2009
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, made under the United Nations Act 1946, amends the North Korea (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1749) (“the principal Order”) to give further effect to United Nations sanctions against North Korea under resolution 1874(2009) of the Security Council adopted on 12th June 2009. This amending Order provides enhanced powers of law enforcement in relation to the maritime interdiction of UK flag vessels. The principal Order is amended by this Order as follows: Article 3 of this Order amends Article 1(3) of the principal Order such that any offence under the principal Order may be committed by UK persons outside the UK. Article 4 inserts a definition of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) goods which are prohibited to be supplied to or procured from North Korea under Security Council resolutions 1718(2006) and 1874 (2009). Article 5 amends the relevant articles of the principal Order so that it prohibits the carriage of either military goods or WMD goods on UK flag vessels to or from North Korea, and the procurement of such goods from North Korea. The inclusion of WMD goods is to ensure that the enforcement powers now introduced may be used in relation to military goods or WMD goods. Article 6 omits the provision in the principal Order regarding forfeiture of military goods, as the enforcement powers in Schedule 3 include the power in paragraph 4 to seize and dispose of military goods or WMD goods as required by resolution 1874 (2009). Article 7 corrects a reference to article 4. Article 8 substitutes a new article 8 in the principal Order empowering an authorised officer to use the enforcement powers set out in Schedule 3 where there are grounds to suspect that a ship contains military goods or WMD goods. The powers are exerciseable in relation to UK registered ships. The new article 8(4) defines who are authorised officers and article 8(5) defines the conduct included in “the commission of an offence”. Article 9 inserts new articles 8A and 8B. Article 8A enables the Secretary of State to authorise another State to exercise the powers in Schedule 3 in relation to a UK flag vessel suspected of committing the offences in article 3(3) (carriage of prohibited goods to North Korea) or article 5(3) (carriage of prohibited goods from North Korea). Article 8B provides that the powers in Schedule 3 must not be used in the territorial waters of another State without the authority of the Secretary of State. Article 10 substitutes a revised article 11 in the principal Order consequent upon the introduction of Schedule 3. Article 11 substitutes a revised article 13, expanding on the provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which apply to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of offences under the principal Order. Article 12 contains consequential amendments to article 14 to provide separate penalties for the offences in paragraph 15 of Schedule 3. Article 13 inserts the new Schedule 3 containing the enforcement powers in relation to ships. It consists of three parts. Part 1 sets out the powers. Part 2 makes provision for judicial oversight of the exercise of the powers of arrest or detention. Part 3 provides offences relating to the obstruction of authorised officers in the exercise of their functions. Article 14 inserts the new Schedule 4 listing the United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency documents which contain the lists of prohibited WMD goods. These documents can be accessed on the website of the UN Sanctions Committee set up under resolution 1718 (2006) at the following web address: www.un.org/sc/committees/ 1718/xportimport_list.shtml. A regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen.

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”; c10_offence_under_parent_act
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