UK Offence Report

Requirement for declaration as to carriage of restricted goods: power to search persons

paragraph 2(5) of SCHEDULE 2 of The Burma (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2013 (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

5 It is an offence for P to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with

a request to be searched under sub-paragraph (3).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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

5 It is an offence for P to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a request to be searched under sub-paragraph (3).

What would breach paragraph 2(5) 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. On these words it is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a request to be searched under sub-paragraph (3).
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Burma (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2013.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
2 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
13 June 2013
In force from
11 July 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 Burma applied by the European Union in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP. On 22 April 2013, by Decision 2013/184/CFSP the Council of the European Union decided to revoke sanctions in respect of Burma except for the embargoes on the supply of arms and related materiel and equipment which might be used for internal repression, together with the prohibition on the provision of technical assistance and military assistance related to such goods. This Order revokes and replaces the Burma (Restrictive Measures)(Overseas Territories) Order 2009 and the Burma (Restrictive Measures)(Overseas Territories)(Suspension) Order 2012.

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