UK Offence Report

Amendment of the Export Control (Venezuela Sanctions) Order 2018

article 5(2) of The Export Control (Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2019

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

2 In article 7, after paragraph (2), insert—

3 A person commits an offence and may be arrested if the person—

a purports to act under the authority of an EU authorisation, but

b fails to comply with any requirement or condition of the authorisation. .

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 article 5(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 Export Control (Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2019 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
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.

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
5 September 2019
In force from
Not determined
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 various existing subordinate legislation making provision in connection with trade restrictions. Article 2 of this Order amends the Export Control Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/3231) to add Eritrea to the list of countries in Part 4 of Schedule 4 to that Order. The countries listed in that Part of that Schedule are subject transit control for category B goods. “Category B goods” are goods specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the 2008 Order. These goods include small firearms and light weapons. Article 3 of this Order amends article 2 of the Export Control (Russia, Crimea and Sevastopol Sanctions) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/3257) (“the 2014 Order”). The definitions of “the Russia Sanctions Regulation” and “the Crimea and Sevastopol Regulation” for the purposes of the 2014 Order are updated and made ambulatory. Amendments are also made to clarify the effect of other interpretation provisions in the 2014 Order. Article 3 also amends the description of the activities which require prior authorisation under Article 4(2b) of the Russia Sanctions Regulation in article 5 of the 2014 Order to reflect amendments to that Article to allow certain activities necessary for certain flights within the ExoMars 2020 Mission Framework (Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2212 of 30 November 2017 - OJ No L 316, 1.12.17, p. 15). Article 4 of this Order amends the Export Control (Sudan, South Sudan and Central African Republic Sanctions) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/3258) (“the 2014 Regulations”). The definitions of “the Central African Republic Regulation”, “the South Sudan Regulation” and “the Sudan Regulation” are updated and made ambulatory. Amendments are also made to clarify the effect of other interpretation provisions in the 2014 Regulations. In addition, regulation 5 of the 2014 Regulations is amended to create an offence for the contravention of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 of 7 May 2015 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan (OJ No. L 117, 08.05.2015, p.13), as lasted amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/934 of 10 December 2018 (OJ No. L 314, 11.12.2018, p.11). There are related consequential amendments to the South Sudan (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/438) (see article 8 of this Order). Article 5 of this Order amends the Export Control (Venezuela Sanctions) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018/108) (“the Venezuela Order”) to create a new offence of failure to comply with a requirement or condition included in an authorisation granted under the Venezuela Sanctions Regulation (as defined in article 2 of the Venezuela Order) (new article 7(3) of the Venezuela Order). It also amends article 8 of the Venezuela Order to create a penalty for that offence. A further amendment is made to article 8(1)(a) of the Order to make clear that, in England and Wales, the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for any offence mentioned in article 8(2) of the Venezuela Order is three months. Article 6 of and the Schedule to this Order amend the Export Control (North Korea Sanctions) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018/200) (“the North Korea Order”). The amendments create offences for, or in connection with, contravention of trade restrictions which have been added to the North Korea Regulation (as defined in article 3 of the North Korea Order) since the North Korea Order was made (see paragraphs 3 to 5 and 6(b) of the Schedule) and penalties for those offences (see paragraph 7 of the Schedule). Further amendments are also made to the North Korea Order in consequence of new import and export restrictions included in the North Korea Regulation (see paragraph 8 of the Schedule). This Order also makes various consequential amendments to the North Korea Order (see paragraphs 2, 6(a) and (c), 7 and 9 of the Schedule). Article 7 of this Order corrects an incorrect cross-reference in the Export Control (Burma Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018/894). An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as it has no or minimal impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

This instrument became law without a debate or a vote. Under the negative procedure it took effect unless a motion to stop it succeeded, and none was tabled.

Neither House could have amended it. A statutory instrument is put to each House as a whole thing, to be approved or not; the Houses can reject an instrument or record their regret, but they cannot change a word of it. That is the constitutional position for every offence on this site.

The full procedural history →

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 “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