Amendment of the principal Order

article 6 of The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017 (revoked)

Status not determined
Objective fault
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictions

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

Provision of computer and related services 10U 1 A person (“P”) commits an offence if P provides, directly or indirectly, services falling within paragraph (2) where P knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that the services are provided— a to a person in North Korea; or b for use in North Korea.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 6?

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.

Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Not determined
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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.

Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales
How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.
Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014
Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

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: 19 July 2017
In force from: 16 August 2017
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 Order amends the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/3066) (as amended) and gives effect in specified Overseas Territories to sanctions imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the European Union in Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/666 of 6 April 2017 (amending Council Decision 2016/849/CFSP) and Council Regulation 2017/658 of 6 April 2017 (amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007). These sanctions include restrictions on establishing a joint venture with or the taking of an ownership interest in persons engaged in activities in the sectors of conventional arms, metallurgy, metalworking and aerospace; and restrictions on the provision of services incidental to mining or manufacturing in the chemical, mining and refining industry, or computer and related services.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

Provision of services in the chemical, mining and refining industryarticle 10T(1)
Provision of computer and related servicesarticle 10U(1)
Provision of services in the chemical, mining and refining industry 10T 1 A person (“P”) commits an offence…article 6

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 “commits 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

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017 (revoked) Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
International sanctions, export control and trade restrictionsOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 2017