UK Offence Report

Jurisdiction to try offences

regulation 27(2) of The Lebanon (Sanctions) (Assassination of Rafiq Hariri and others) (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

2 In the application of paragraph (1) to Scotland, where an offence is committed outside the United Kingdom any such proceedings against

a person may be taken—

a in any sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or is in custody, or

b in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may determine.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
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 regulation 27(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. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Lebanon (Sanctions) (Assassination of Rafiq Hariri and others) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

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
18 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) to establish a sanctions regime for the purposes of implementing the United Kingdom’s international obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1636 (2005), adopted in response to the terrorist bombing in Beirut, Lebanon on 14 February 2005 that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others (the “2005 bombing”). Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the Regulations replace the European Union sanctions regime in relation to Resolution 1636 (2005), implemented via an EU Council Decision and Regulation. The Regulations provide that those individuals for the time being named by the UN Security Council Committee established by paragraph 3(b) of Resolution 1636 (2005) as suspected of involvement in the planning, sponsoring, organising or perpetrating of the 2005 bombing are designated for the purposes of these Regulations. Designated persons are subject to financial sanctions, including having their funds and/or economic resources frozen. Persons designated by the UN are “excluded persons” under section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, meaning generally that they must be refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and any leave that has been granted is invalid. The Regulations provide for certain exceptions to this sanctions regime, in particular in relation to financial sanctions (for example to allow for frozen accounts to be credited with interest or other earnings) and also acts done for the purpose of national security or the prevention of serious crime. The Regulations also confer powers on the Treasury to issue licences in respect of activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the financial sanctions imposed. Schedule 2 to these Regulations sets out the purposes for which the Treasury may issue such licences. 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. The Regulations prescribe powers for the provision and sharing of information to enable the effective implementation and enforcement of the sanctions regime. Council Regulation (EC) No 305/2006 of 21 February 2006 imposing specific restrictive measures against certain persons suspected of involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri is revoked by these Regulations. The Lebanon and Syria (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2012 are also revoked. An amendment is also made by these Regulations to the Schedule to the United Nations and European Union Financial Sanctions (Linking) Regulations 2017. An Impact Assessment has not been produced for these Regulations, as they are intended to ensure the existing sanctions framework remains 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 framework. 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 0.55.

Basis
c06_offence_committed
Confidence
0.55 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