UK Offence Report

Offences related to the provision of access to ports

article 10J(1) of The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2016 (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 It is an offence for a person (“P”) to provide access to ports in the Territory to any vessel that P knows or has reasonable cause to suspect— a is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a person listed in Annex IV to the Council Regulation; b contains restricted goods, luxury goods, aviation fuel, gold and ores, coal, iron and iron ore, or any other goods prohibited under this Order; c has refused to be inspected after such inspection has been authorised by the vessel’s flag State or state of registration; d is flying the flag of North Korea; or e is a stateless vessel which has refused to be inspected.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

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

Classifier’s reasoning: objective standard in the offence-creating words: reasonable cause to suspect.

What would breach article 10J(1)?

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 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2016.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months

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
8 June 2016
In force from
10 June 2016
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 amends the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012. This Order gives effect in specified Overseas Territories to the additional sanctions against North Korea adopted by the United Nations Security Council in resolution 2270 (2016), which are reflected and implemented in Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007. In particular the Order provides for the imposition of additional asset freezing measures against certain funds and economic resources of the Government of North Korea and the Korean Worker’s Party and makes provision for licences to be granted to enable the dealing of such funds and economic resources in specified circumstances. The Order also provides for the imposition of additional financial sanctions measures on North Korean credit and financial institutions and UK credit and financial institutions. These include requirements to terminate financial relationships with North Korean credit and financial institutions, prevent new economic activity in North Korea and prohibit financial support for trade that could assist nuclear-related, other weapons of mass destructions-related, or ballistic missile-related programmes, or other activities prohibited by the Council Regulation. The Order also gives effect to new sectoral prohibitions relating to the export of coal, minerals, iron ore, gold, other metals and an import ban on aviation fuel. It broadens the inspection regime in relation to cargo which may be carrying prohibited goods from or to North Korea and imposes prohibitions relating to the chartering of vessels and aircraft to North Korea and listed persons.

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