UK Offence Report

Brokering services: non-UK activity relating to military goods and military technology

regulation 21(3) of The Haiti (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

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 it is

a defence for

a person charged with that offence to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the brokering services were provided in relation to an arrangement mentioned in that paragraph.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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

enes a prohibition in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but it is a defence for a person charged with that offence to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the brokering services were provided in relation to an arrangement mentioned in that paragraph.

What would breach regulation 21(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 Haiti (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, 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
1 July 2025
In force from
23 July 2025
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 amend the Haiti (Sanctions) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2023/1281) (the “2022 Regulations”). These amendments are being made to ensure compliance with the UK's UN obligations, specifically to ensure changes made by UN Security Council Resolution 2752 (2024), adopted by the UN Security Council on 18th October 2024, are reflected. Regulation 4 of the 2022 Regulations is amended to include reference to the extension of the scope of the arms embargo by Resolution 2752 to include a broader range of arms and related materiel. Regulations 15, 16, 17, 36, 37, 48 and 49 of the 2022 Regulations are amended accordingly. Regulations 18 to 22 are inserted; these provisions reintroduce measures relevant to the broader arms embargo, which had previously been omitted by the Haiti (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/1320) in consequence of the more limited arms embargo introduced by UN Security Council resolution 2699 (2023) adopted by the Security Council on 2nd October 2023, and resolution 2700 (2023) adopted by UN Security Council on 19th October 2023. The definition of “small arms, light weapons and ammunition” set out in Schedule 1A is omitted in consequence of the broader arms embargo. A full impact assessment has not been produced for these Regulations as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. 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