UK Offence Report

Power to demand evidence of destination of restricted goods or luxury goods

paragraph 1(3) of SCHEDULE 2 of The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012

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 It is an offence for

a person (“P”) to fail to comply with

a requirement under sub-paragraph (1), unless P proves that the goods reached

a destination other than an authorised destination without P’s consent or connivance.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach paragraph 1(3) of SCHEDULE 2?

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. Being served with a notice under the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  2. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  3. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
7 years

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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 December 2012
In force from
9 January 2013
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 gives effect in specified Overseas Territories to sanctions in respect of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) adopted by the United Nations Security Council in resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009). The Order also reflects the implementation of these sanctions by the European Union in Council Decision 2010/800 CFSP (as amended) and Council Regulation (EU) 329/2007 (as amended). This Order revokes and replaces the North Korea (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2006. The main provisions of the sanctions in respect of DPRK as reflected in this Order are: a prohibition in respect of the direct or indirect sale, supply or transfer to any person in, or for use, in DPRK of (i) arms and related materiel, (ii) items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or which could contribute to its military activities, (iii) certain dual-use goods and technology, and (iv) luxury goods; a prohibition on the supply to DPRK of certain technical assistance, training, financial and other specified forms of assistance; a prohibition on obtaining arms and other prohibited material as well as related technical assistance, training, financial and other specified forms of assistance from DPRK; a freezing of funds and economic resources owned or controlled by persons or entities designated by the United Nations Security Council or its Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 1718 (2006) or by the European Union; and a prohibition on making funds and economic resources available to such designated persons or entities. Individuals and entities are designated (as specified in United Nations Security Council resolution 1718 (2006)) for being engaged in or providing support for, including through illicit means, DPRK’s nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destruction-related and ballistic missile-related programmes. The sanctions regime also includes a prohibition on the provision of ship supply services, including bunkering, to ships registered in DPRK that are believed to be carrying goods the carriage of which is prohibited by this Order. The Order makes provision for the Governor to licence certain activities in line with exceptions under the sanctions regime.

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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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