UK Offence Report

Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified…

paragraph 4(1) of SCHEDULE 5 of The Afghanistan (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

1 Any person who—

a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within

a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or

b furnishes any information or produces any document which to their knowledge is false in

a material particular or recklessly furnishes any document or information which is false in

a material particular to such

a person in response to such

a request; or

c otherwise wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of their powers under this Schedule; or

d with intent to evade the provision of this Schedule, destroys, mutilates, defaces, secretes or removes any document; 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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, wilfully, with intent to).

“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: wilfully, with intent to, recklessly; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

1 Any person who— a without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails within the time and in the manner specified (or, if no time has been specified, within a reasonable time) to comply with any request made under this Schedule by any person who is empowered to make it; or b furnishes any information or produc

What would breach paragraph 4(1) of SCHEDULE 5?

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 Afghanistan (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
Not determined
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

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 1988 (2011) adopted on 17th June 2011. Resolution 1988 (2011) maintains in force the sanctions first imposed by resolution 1267 (1999) against the Taliban. In parallel the Security Council adopted resolution 1989 (2011) maintaining its previous sanctions against persons associated with Al-Qaida, 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 the Taliban and persons associated with them in constituting a threat to the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan 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

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