UK Offence Report

Holding or controlling illegally removed Syrian cultural property

regulation 12(3) of The Syria (United Nations Sanctions) (Cultural Property) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

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 A person who fails to comply with the requirement in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but it is

a defence for

a person charged with that offence (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the goods held or controlled by P were illegally removed Syrian cultural property.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Legal burden on the defendant

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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

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

The defence, as drafted

th the requirement in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but it is a defence for a person charged with that offence (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the goods held or controlled by P were illegally removed Syrian cultural property.

What would breach regulation 12(3)?

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 an offence is committed where a person fails to comply with the requirement in paragraph (1).
  2. Being served with a notice under the Syria (United Nations Sanctions) (Cultural Property) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. 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 in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

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 November 2020
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations are made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (c.13) to establish a sanctions regime in relation to the trade in Syrian cultural property for the purposes of compliance with the United Kingdom’s United Nations obligations in Security Council resolution 2199 adopted by the Security Council on 12 February 2015. Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, these Regulations also replace the measures relating to Syrian cultural property in the European Union sanctions regime in relation to Syria, implemented via an EU Council Decision and Regulation. The Regulations impose trade restrictions on the trade in Syrian cultural property or any other item of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific or religious importance, illegally removed from Syria on or after 15 March 2011. The Regulations provide for exceptions to this sanctions regime for acts done for the purpose of national security or the prevention of serious crime, and for the return to Syria of illegally removed Syrian cultural property as provided for in UN Security Council resolution 2199. The Regulations make it a criminal offence to contravene, or circumvent, any of the prohibitions in these Regulations and prescribe the mode of trial and penalties that apply to such offences. They also provide for the application of similar types of provision in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to the offences relating to trade in illegally removed Syrian cultural property. The Regulations also confer powers on specified maritime enforcement officers to stop and search ships in international and foreign waters for the purpose of enforcing specified trade sanctions and to seize goods found on board ships which are being, or have been, dealt with in contravention, or deemed contravention, of those prohibitions. The Regulations prescribe powers for the provision and sharing of information to enable the effective implementation and enforcement of the sanctions regime. Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 is revoked by these Regulations. The Export Control (Syria Sanctions) Order 2013 and the Export Control (Syria Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2014 are also revoked. An Impact Assessment has not been produced for these Regulations, as they are intended to ensure existing sanctions remain in place following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. These Regulations are intended to deliver substantially the same policy effects as the existing European Union sanctions. An Impact Assessment was, however, produced for the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and can be found at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/653271/Sanctions_and_Anti-Money_Laundering_Bill_Impact_Assessment_18102017.pdf.

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