UK Offence Report

Technical assistance relating to aircraft

regulation 27N(4) of The Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (revoked)

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

4 A person who contravenes the prohibition 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 technical assistance was provided to or for the benefit of

a person designated under regulation 5(1)(c).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

es the prohibition 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 technical assistance was provided to or for the benefit of a person designated under regulation 5(1)(c).

What would breach regulation 27N(4)?

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 the prohibition in paragraph (1).
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) 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 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 August 2021
In force from
9 August 2021
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 add new measures to the sanctions regime in relation to Belarus. The Regulations amend the Belarus (EU Exit) (Sanctions) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/600) (“the 2019 Regulations”). Part 2 of the Regulations amends the provisions in the 2019 Regulations which confer powers on the Secretary of State to designate persons. Regulation 5 amends the 2019 Regulations to confer a power on the Secretary of State to designate persons for the purpose of new prohibitions on technical assistance relating to aircraft. Regulation 6 expands the criteria for designation to include providing support for or obtaining an economic benefit from the Government of Belarus as a way in which persons can be involved in specified activities. Part 3 of the Regulations adds new financial sanctions to Part 3 of the 2019 Regulations. New restrictions are imposed on dealing with certain financial instruments, providing loans and credit and providing insurance and reinsurance services. Part 4 of the Regulations amends Part 5 of the 2019 Regulations, on trade. New restrictions are imposed in relation to trade in interception and monitoring goods and technology (as specified in new Schedule 2A) and interception and monitoring services, dual-use goods and technology, goods for the tobacco industry, petroleum products and potash (as defined in new Schedule 2B). Restrictions are also imposed in relation to the provision of technical assistance relating to aircraft. Under regulation 21, a new Part 5A is added to the 2019 Regulations, conferring powers on the Secretary of State, air traffic control and airport operators to make directions for the purpose of preventing certain aircraft from entering the airspace over the United Kingdom or from landing in the United Kingdom, requiring aircraft to leave the airspace over the United Kingdom. Part 6 of these Regulations provides for licensing and exceptions from the new restrictions, by amendments to Part 6 of the 2019 Regulations. Part 7 of these Regulations makes a number of consequential amendments to the provisions of the 2019 Regulations on information and enforcement (including maritime enforcement) of the sanctions measures. A full impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business, the voluntary sector and the public sector has been published alongside these Regulations and is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sanctions-on-the-republic-of-belarus, or from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

This instrument required the approval of both Houses before it could take effect.

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