UK Offence Report

Declaration as to goods: powers of search

article 9(3) of The Al-Qaida (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012 (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 Any person who without reasonable excuse refuses to make such

a declaration, and fails to produce any goods as aforesaid, or refuses to allow themselves to be searched in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this article, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

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.

“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 word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised); 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

3 Any person who without reasonable excuse refuses to make such a declaration, and fails to produce any goods as aforesaid, or refuses to allow themselves to be searched in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this article, shall be guilty of an offence under this Order.

What would breach article 9(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. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Al-Qaida (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012.
  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
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
10 July 2012
In force from
7 August 2012
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.

The Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, the St Helena Act 1833, the British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945, and prerogative powers, gives effect to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1989 (2011) adopted on 17th June 2011. Resolution 1989 (2011) maintains in force the sanctions first imposed by resolution 1267 (1999) against Al-Qaida and individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with it. In parallel the Security Council adopted resolution 1988 (2011) maintaining its previous sanctions against the Taliban, but separating them out into a separate resolution. The effect of the Order is to continue, in the specified Overseas Territories, the asset freeze in respect of targeted individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida as designated by the Security Council, and to prohibit funds being made available to such persons. It also prohibits the supply of military goods and technical assistance related to military activities to designated persons. The list of persons designated by the Security Council is to be found at http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm The Order revokes the Al-Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002 and the Al-Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002.

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