UK Offence Report

Technical assistance relating to dual-use goods and dual-use technology

regulation 34(3) of The Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021

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 person was connected with Myanmar, or ii the goods or technology 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 or technology were for military use in Myanmar; c it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(c) (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the technical assistance was provided to the Myanmar security forces; d it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(d) (“P”) to show that P did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the goods or technology were for use by the Myanmar 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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 person was connected with Myanmar, or ii the goods or technology were for military use; b it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(b) (“P”) to sh

What would breach regulation 34(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 Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021, 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 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
26 April 2021
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 Myanmar for the purposes of: promoting the peace, stability and security of Myanmar; promoting respect for democracy, the rule of law and good governance in Myanmar; discouraging actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population in Myanmar; and promoting compliance with international human rights law and respect for human rights in Myanmar. The Regulations revoke and replace the existing sanctions regime established by the Burma (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/136) (“the 2019 Regulations”). Part 2 of the Regulations confers a power on the Secretary of State to designate persons who are, or have been, involved in specified activities for the purposes of financial or immigration sanctions. Part 3 of the Regulations provides for designated persons to be made subject to financial sanctions, including having their funds and/or economic resources frozen. Part 4 of the Regulations provides that designated persons are “excluded persons” for the purposes of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77), 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. Part 5 of the Regulations imposes trade restrictions on military goods and technology, on dual-use goods and technology, and on specified goods and technology which may be used to repress the civilian population of Myanmar (as specified in Schedule 2) or for intercepting or monitoring their communications (as specified in Schedule 3). It also imposes further trade restrictions in respect of the provision of interception and monitoring services to, or for the benefit of, the Government of Myanmar, or the provision of certain services, funds or armed personnel to, or for the benefit of, the Tatmadaw (i.e. the Myanmar Armed Forces). Part 6 of the Regulations provides 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 Secretary of State and the Treasury to issue licences in respect of activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the financial and trade sanctions, and for the Secretary of State to issue directions in relation to a person subject to immigration sanctions. Schedule 4 to the Regulations sets out the purposes for which the Treasury may issue such licences authorising acts by a particular person. Part 7 of the Regulations confers powers for obtaining and disclosing information to enable the effective implementation and enforcement of the sanctions regime, and imposes obligations on various persons to report relevant information to the appropriate (specified) authorities. In Part 8, the Regulations prescribe the mode of trial and penalties that apply to offences under the Regulations. They also provide for the application of similar types of provision in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) to certain offences related to trade. Part 9 of the Regulations confers 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. Part 10 of the Regulations contains supplementary provision, including transitional provision for licences issued under previous legislation to continue to have effect and, where the designated person was previously designated under another enactment, for the provisions relating to prior obligations to be read in accordance with the date that the designated person was first designated. A full impact assessment has not been produced for the Regulations as no, or no significant, impact is foreseen on the private, voluntary or public sectors in the United Kingdom. A de minimis assessment has been prepared as this instrument is likely to entail some costs for businesses, but the net impact is estimated to be below £5million per year.

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