UK Offence Report

Provision of assistance, advice or training related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance…

article 6 of The Belarus (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2011 (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

6 Any person who, except under the authority of

a licence granted by the Governor, directly or indirectly, provides to any person in, or for use in, Belarus any assistance, including advice or training, relating to the sale, supply, transfer, maintenance, manufacture or use of restricted goods shall be guilty of an offence under this Order, unless they can prove that they did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the assistance, advice or training in question was to be provided to

a person in, or for use in Belarus.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
breaching the provision
Fault element
Objective fault
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened and that it fell below the standard the provision sets. That is an objective test - what a reasonable person in the same position would have done, not what this defendant actually thought.

What a person personally believed or intended is not the question; the standard is what was reasonable.

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: objective standard in the offence-creating words: reasonable cause to suspect.

The defence, as drafted

Order. 3 In proceedings for an offence under this article, it is a defence for a person to show that they did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the funds or economic resources were owned, held or controlled by a listed person. 4 In this article, “to deal with” means— a in respect of funds— i to use, alter, move, allow access to or tra

What would breach article 6?

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 what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Belarus (Restrictive Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2011.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
2 years

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
12 October 2011
In force from
14 October 2011
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 consolidated Order gives effect in the specified overseas territories to measures adopted by the European Union in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP which was adopted on 26th October 2010, and amended on 20 June 2011 to add an arms embargo to the restrictive measures, and implemented in Council Regulation 765/2006, as amended from time to time, which came into force on 20th May 2006. Council Decision 2010/639 CFSP repealed Common Position 2006/276/CFSP which had originally introduced the restrictive measures. The Order continues restrictive measures in respect of Belarus and imposes restrictive measures on individuals responsible for the failure to start independent investigations into the prosecution of certain crimes for the fraudulent elections and referendum in 2004 and for the violations of international electoral standards in the presidential elections in 2006 and 2010 and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition and those persons associated with them. This Order applies to each of the British overseas territories listed in Schedule 1. The measures in the Order include a prohibition on the supply and delivery of arms and related materiel, the freezing of the funds and economic resources and a prohibition on making funds or economic resources available to persons or entities listed in Annex I and IA to the Council Regulation. Article 1 provides that the Order extends to the territories listed in Schedule 1, as well as setting out its title, commencement date and application. Article 2 contains the definitions used in the Order. Article 3 provides for publication by the Governor of lists of listed persons and restricted goods. Article 4 makes it a criminal offence for any person to supply restricted goods without a licence. Article 5 prohibits the exportation of restricted goods and makes it a criminal offence to contravene this prohibition. Article 6 prohibits the provision of assistance, advice or training relating to the sale, supply, transfer, maintenance, manufacture or use of restricted goods and makes it an offence to contravene this provision. Article 7 prohibits the use of ships, aircraft and vehicles to carry restricted goods to Belarus and makes it a criminal offence to contravene this provision. Article 8 provides a licensing procedure to disapply prohibitions in relation to the arms embargo in respect of certain equipment, vehicles and protective clothing intended solely for humanitarian or protective use. Article 9 provides for customs powers to demand evidence of the destination of goods and makes it an offence to fail to comply with the provisions. Article 10 requires that ,when requested to do so, those leaving the Territory provide a declaration as to goods and produce the goods, provides for powers of search and makes it an offence if provisions are not complied with or false information is provided. Article 11 provides powers for searching ships suspected of being used in contravention of the provisions of the Order, prohibiting a voyage from proceeding and providing for seizing or destroying restricted goods and detaining the vessel. Article 12 provides powers for searching aircraft suspected of being used in contravention of the provisions of the Order, prohibiting a flight from proceeding and providing for seizing or destroying restricted goods and detaining the aircraft. Article 13 provides powers for searching vehicles suspected of being used in contravention of the provisions of the Order, prohibiting a journey from proceeding and providing for seizing or destroying restricted goods and detaining the vehicle. Article 14 regulates the furnishing of information under articles 11 to 13 and establishes offences for non compliance. Article 15 requires the assets of a listed person to be frozen. Article 16 prohibits making funds available to a listed person and also provides for a defence. Article 17 provides exceptions to articles 15 and 16. Article 18 creates offences for circumventing the prohibitions in articles 15 and 16. Article 19 enables the Governor to direct that a person reasonably suspected to be a listed person be treated as if they were, for example when using an alias. Article 20 makes provision for licences to authorise exemptions from article 15 and 16. Article 21 requires institutions to disclose knowledge or suspicion of customers or other persons with whom they have dealings being listed persons, and creates offences for failure to comply with these requirements. Article 22 creates offences in connection with applications for licences and the failure to comply with the requirements. Article 23 provides for the Governor to obtain evidence or information to do with the matters regulated by the Order. Article 24 provides for penalties for offences created under the Order. Article 25 provides for proceedings for offences created under the Order. Article 26 prescribes the manner in which notices may be given under the Order. Article 27 provides for the delegation of powers by the Governor. Article 28 limits the scope of the prohibitions in the Order. Article 29 provides for the Order to cease to have effect, be postponed or suspended in the event that the Council Regulation is postponed, suspended, or terminated in whole or in part. Schedule 1 lists the territories to which the Order applies. Schedule 2 modifies articles 24 and 25 regarding penalties and court procedures for the Sovereign Base Areas. Schedule 3 modifies article 24 regarding penalties for the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Schedule 4 modifies article 24 regarding penalties for St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Schedule 5 makes provision regarding evidence and information. Schedule 6 names the statutory instrument which is revoked by virtue of Article 30.

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