UK Offence Report

Use of ships, aircraft and vehicles: Military and WMD goods to Iran

article 4A(3) of The Iran (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2010 (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

3 If any ship, aircraft or vehicle referred to in paragraph (1) is used in contravention of paragraph (1) then—

a in the case of

a United Kingdom ship or any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, the owner and the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

b in the case of any other ship or aircraft, the person to whom the ship or aircraft is for the time being chartered and, if he or she is such

a person as is referred to in paragraph (2)(c)(i) or (ii), the master of the ship or, as the case may be, the operator and the commander of the aircraft; or

c in the case of

a vehicle, the operator of the vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, unless the person proves that he or she did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Iran to any destination therein.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 owner
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

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 an owner 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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

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).

The defence, as drafted

he vehicle, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, unless the person proves that he or she did not know and had no reason to suppose that the carriage of the goods in question was, or formed part of, carriage from any place outside Iran to any destination therein.

What would breach article 4A(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. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Iran (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2010, whatever the reason for doing it.
  2. 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.

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
15 December 2010
In force from
17 December 2010
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 Iran (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/886) (“the principal Order”) to give further effect to United Nations sanctions against Iran under resolutions 1737(2006), 1747(2007), 1803(2008) and 1929(2010) of the Security Council. 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 any person within the territory of the United Kingdom (including the territorial seas of the United Kingdom), by persons who are British citizens, bodies incorporated under UK law, persons on board UK ships, and aircraft registered in the UK whilst in international airspace. Article 4 inserts various definitions, including “customs official” (who is one of several named authorised officers given enforcement powers under Schedule 3), “permitted light water reactor goods”, “ship supply services”, “WMD (weapons of mass destruction) goods” which are prohibited to be supplied to or procured from Iran under Security Council resolutions 1737(2006), 1803(2008) and 1929(2010). Article 5 amends the relevant articles of the principal Order so that it prohibits the procurement of WMD and military goods from Iran and the carriage of military and WMD goods from Iran. The inclusion of WMD goods is to ensure that the enforcement powers now introduced may be used in relation to the carriage of both prohibited military and 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 prohibited military or WMD goods. Articles 7 amends the principal Order by inserting a new article 4A to prohibit carriage of military or WMD goods (other than permitted light water reactor goods) to Iran in accordance with the requirements of Security Council resolution 1929(2010). Article 8 renumbers the existing article 5 to become article 5A. Article 9 inserts a new Article 5 which prohibits the provision of supply services to Iranian registered ships where there is information which provides reasonable grounds to believe that the ship is carrying prohibited items. Article 10 substitutes a new article 6 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 prohibited military or WMD goods from Iran in contravention of article 4(1) or prohibited WMD or military goods destined for Iran in contravention of article 4A(1). The powers are exerciseable in relation to all ships within the territory of the United Kingdom. Powers are exercisable over UK ships on the high seas. Within the territories of other states the powers are exercisable with permission of Secretary of State given in accordance with article 6B. The new article 6(5) defines who are authorised officers and article 6(6) defines the conduct included in “the commission of an offence”. Article 11 inserts new articles 6A and 6B. Article 6A enables the Secretary of State to authorise another State to exercise the powers in Schedule 3 in relation to a UK ship suspected of committing the offences in article 4(3) (carriage of prohibited military or WMD goods from Iran) or article 4A(3) (carriage of prohibited WMD or military goods to Iran). Article 6B provides that the powers in Schedule 3 may be exercised over a UK ship in the territory of another State with the authority of the Secretary of State. Articles 12 and 13 make consequential amendments to articles 7 and 8. Article 14 substitutes a revised article 9 in the principal Order consequent upon the introduction of Schedule 3. Article 15 substitutes a revised article 11, 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 16 provides penalties in article 12 for the offences in article 4A(3) and paragraph 15 of Schedule 3, and consequential amendments. Article 12(1) and (2) are also amended to take account of section 45 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. Reform (Scotland) Act 2007 and section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Article 17 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 18 inserts the new Schedule 4 listing the United Nations Security Council documents which contain the lists of prohibited WMD goods. The United Nations Security Council documents which contain the lists of prohibited WMD goods can be accessed on the website of the UN Sanctions Committee set up under resolution 1737 (2006) at the following web address: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/selecdocs.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”
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