UK Offence Report

Supply and delivery of dual-use goods

regulation 28C(3) of The Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) 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 contravenes a prohibition in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but— a it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(a) (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that— i the goods were destined (or ultimately destined) for Burma, or ii the goods were for military use; b it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(b) (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the goods were supplied or delivered to or for the use of the Burma security forces.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
contravening a requirement of the instrument
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

s a prohibition in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but— a it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(a) (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that— i the goods were destined (or ultimately destined) for Burma, or ii the goods were for military use; b it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(b) (“P”

What would breach regulation 28C(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 contravenes a prohibition in paragraph (1).
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

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
11 June 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) (“the Sanctions Act”). Part 1 makes corrections and amendments to a number of sanctions regulations which have been made under section 1 of the Sanctions Act, namely the Iran (Sanctions) (Human Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/134), the Venezuela (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/135), the Burma (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/136), the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/554), the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/600), the Zimbabwe (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/604), the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/618), the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/792), the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/855), the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/1142) and the Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/1145). Part 2 makes revocations which are consequential on the provisions in those sanctions regulations, namely the revocation of the asset-freezing and export control legislation which has been superseded by those sanctions regulations. An impact assessment has not been produced for these Regulations, as the instrument is intended to ensure existing sanctions remain in place following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. 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

Both Houses had to approve this instrument before it could take effect, and did so.

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 →

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

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