The UKBA/HMRC "Scales of Justice" for Cross-Border Shoppers

Scenario

UKBA/HMRC stop 2 people. Neither person stopped knows each other, neither person has a criminal record or has ever been stopped before. Both have jobs, homes and  ID as well as their passport to show their name and address.One is carrying tobacco (legal product) for personal use, the other is carrying drugs (illegal product) for personal use. Both will have their 'goods' seized. The one carrying drugs has commited a criminal offence, the one carrying tobacco has commited no criminal offence. The person with the drugs will be interviewed under criminal procedures and the one carrying tobacco will be interviewed under civil procedures.

The person carrying drugs

Person will be taken to an interview room where  they have the following rights along with openess and transparency

  • See a solicitor free of charge
  • Have someone told where you are
  • Read a copy of the Codes of practice, which explains the procedures the interview should follow in such circumstances
  • You should be given a written note of these rights and cautioned
There are clear rules which govern the way in which a person can be questioned, designed to stop unfair pressure being placed on a suspect. There should be regular breaks for food, the cell and interview room should be clean and properly heated, and the questioning should not put unreasonable pressure on the suspect. Someone who is deaf or has difficulty in understanding English should be given a signer or an interpreter.Before the interview starts, you have the right to consult with your solicitor privately. The interview will be recorded.

The outcome for the persons offence of carrying drugs for personal use will almost certainly be a caution (which the person has to agree to) or the person will be charged (or not) and then released on bail. lf charged, you are innocent until proven guilty. This will be in court where your guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The drugs will be seized and kept as evidence.

The person carrying tobacco

You will be questioned in most cases in full public view. There will be no openess and transparency in the interview.

You have no right to a solictor free of charge.

You won't be read  a copy of the Codes of practice, which explains the procedures the UKBA/HMRC should follow in such circumstances.

You will not be given a written note of these rights or cautioned but you will be read the Commerciality Statement  .“You have excise goods in your possession (control) which appear not to have borne UK duty. Goods may be held without payment of duty providing they have been acquired and are held for your own use. I suspect that you may be holding goods for a commercial purpose and not for your own use. I intend to ask you some questions to establish whether these goods are held for a commercial purpose. If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming or if you do not stay for questioning it may lead me to conclude that the goods are not held for your own use but held for a commercial purpose and your goods (and vehicle) may be seized as liable to forfeiture.You are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time. Do you understand?”

... and so it begins

Documented incidents show there are no clear rules which govern the way in which a UKBA/HMRC officer can question a person, and are designed to place  unfair pressure on a suspect. There won't  be regular breaks for food etc, and one doubts you will see an interview room whether it's clean and properly heated or not. The UKBA/HMRC do follow a line of questioning which puts unreasonable pressure on the suspect. Someone who is deaf or has difficulty in understanding English should be given a signer or an interpreter.(really? look here)

The interview won't be recorded and the only record of the interview will be the UKBA/HMRC officers notebook that they will paraphrase this person's with the tobacco answers and then they will try and coerce this person to corroborate said notebook as a true and factual accont of the interview. ln other words sign a confession. This person will not get a copy of this notebook.

The tobacco goods are then seized and in all probability will be destroyed before this person with the tobacco will be able to get an appeal heard. This person will now have been found guilty to all intents and purposes as a smuggler (smuggling is a criminal offence) by default, by the UKBA/HMRC officer using the balance of probabilities (their interpretation 'balance') and not beyond reasonable doubt. This person's guilt as a smuggler is then recorded for future use against them by UKBA/HMRC.

Finally the UKBA/HMRC officer may then try to disuade this person from appealing by telling them that they have no chance of winning and will be liable for costs of 2500 pounds! Unless this person has the guts to fight this injustice, they will remain guilty. They have just 28 days to decide to fight this injustice ... and they'll probably have to fight it by themselves for they have no free legal team to help them ... unlike our person with the drugs!

What comes next for our person now without their tobacco and the person now without their drugs is just as biased ... and that's in our courts!

..........................................................................................................................................................

These are the "Scales of Justice" that the UKBA/HMRC use ... with a size 12 boot on the 'guilty' side but hey 'It's not an issue' to our etsteemed hypocritical representatives of "Freedom and Justice" <please read small print for exceptions..

Smokers are on their own ... period!

29 comments:

  1. Jeez thats disgraceful. Something you'd expect in the tinpot states of Africa but not here. How can this go unreported?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kris ,it goes unreported because it 'isn't an issue' and only of interest to 'fringe','single issue','small' blogs like this one.

    (the quotes being from The Tobacco Industry's Mouthpiece).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ever looked at profiles of who's running these groups SH? most are in or the fringe of the bubble. Dont expect them to rock the boat anytime soon. You could try becoming black, gay, muslim and cutting one of your legs off and maybe theyll notice then but dont count on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is a legal anomaly and a sign of the corruptness of our leaders that the UKBA can treat smuggling as a civil offence. Bringing back tobacco to sell IS smuggling, smuggling is theft and theft is a crime.

    In any just society it would be treated as such.

    How ironic that inorder to obtain justice and simply fair treatment we need to push for a civil offence to be treated criminally...

    Mad world.

    Please Sir, may I get off now?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is no limit to the levels these UKBA/HMRC will go to rob shoppers. Any attempt by shoppers to bring some transparency to the tactics used by UKBA/HMRC is met with threats.

    George (the deaf shopper robbed of 3kg tobacco) tells me that lan (The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it)Sked told him that if he attempted to use his mobile phone to record the interview would be met by arrest under the Terrorism Act!!!!!

    l therefore announce a new word for the dictionary ... anything that is stupid, ridiculous, absurd etc is now called a 'Sked' !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. When will MPs become actively involved?

    JJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. " record the interview would be met by arrest under the Terrorism Act!!!!!"

    I wish you were joking but I know you're not. Mr Sked and his colleagues badly need publically identifying and mercilessly lampooning.

    If I lived in his town then there would be posters of him in an SS uniform on the gates of his kid's school.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All you have to do if you wanted to smuggle drugs is to have a case full of ciggies or bacca.
    The questions about drugs, firearms etc suddenly stop when found with excise goods, tossers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've managed to get myself formally arrested by Customs for not cooperating, at which point it becomes criminal. They un-arrested me as soon as they practically could.

    I didn't realise the implications at the time, but I do now. In the spirit of scientific enquiry I intend to continue pushing the limits on each occasion.

    SBC, I don't really approve of you continually implying that our champion Simon is a complete waste of time and space. We should cut him a bit of slack. Stop giving the impression that Forest is just another self-serving, pension-seeking excuse for employing non-productive parasites in cushy jobs with lots of entertainment, networking, free lunches and comfy offices for self-important... Oops, I didn't mean to imply... Oh Buggrit.

    (Ed, erase that last paragraph, please.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I didn't realise the implications at the time, but I do now. In the spirit of scientific enquiry I intend to continue pushing the limits on each occasion."

    Yep I've been thinking along those lines too. If they do look like they are going for seizure then I might just push it....although not the Terrorism Act because I'd have even less rights....which is probably why the Skedites threaten it.

    If we could get a recording of a Skedite actually threatening the use of TA on a OAP/War Vet/Cripple/Ginger then maybe that'd be MSM worthy...

    ReplyDelete
  11. SBC ... that's all we need is a few people brave enough to say 'no' and take it from there. The UKBA/HMRC's arrogance, over-confidence and Skeds will then do the rest for you. Get the incident recorded and put it online. Keep chipping away, bit by bit. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is there not a Solicitor/Lawyer in the UK (also a smoker) who is willing to go abroad, bring back cigs/baccy over the "allowance" and then PUT THESE
    FASCISTS IN THEIR PLACE.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If they were open and transparent and the whole interview was recorded it would stop a great deal of injustice. Too many of them are on a power trip and abuse their position ... and that is from the bottom to the top.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This shows what is wrong with our country. These gov thieving bastards are a f'ing disgrace and all those that can do something about turn a blind eye. One day it'll come out and then they'll all jump on the bandwagon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Regular shoppers, carrying out their lawful right to purchase goods in another EU state are actually a very easy target. You have to remember that once Gus Thoms and Heck Size have siezed your goods, it gets another tick in their boxes, it goes towards meeting their targets and they can brag about how many "smugglers" they have stopped and how much "illegal" tgobacco and cigarettes they have impounded. It is far easier to "catch" a number of shoppers than it is to really go after the organised criminals that are perverting they system.
    What really irks me is, if I lived in say Germany, I could hop in my car, drive to Belgium, buy my tobacco and or cigarettes and drive back again in time for cafe und kuchen without any let or hinderance whatever. I am a European just the same as anyone from Germany, Holland, Spain or France (but I speak proper), so why the hell do we get victimised when the rest of Europe doesn't, just because we have a big paddling pool around us?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Reg Tripper

    "so why the hell do we get victimised when the rest of Europe doesn't"

    Actually France is trying to pull a 'sked' (ie introduce ludicrous 'MILS') on its own citizens who are so criminal that they actually drive to Belgium to buy ciggies at a cheaper price.

    A pouch is about 3 euros cheaper in the BNL than France so its a saving for those French who live near the border.

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK you are a smoker, not commiting a crime, your baccy is duty paid and you expect to puff your way through it.

    They cannot detain you (you've not committed any crime) so the seizure must be theft. You are entitled to protect yourself from muggers.

    I will physically resist any attempt to snatch my legitimately held goods. I hope other people will too.

    What about organising a publicised coach trip? Free lunch and booze for the press should guarantee a few reporters and cameras. Everybody brings back more than the "recommended amount".

    ReplyDelete
  18. ^XX Regular Tripper said...

    What really irks me is, if I lived in say Germany, I could hop in my car, drive to Belgium, buy my tobacco and or cigarettes and drive back again in time for cafe und kuchen without any let or hinderance whatever.XX

    Who filled your head with THAT pile of shite?

    Customs here are siezing MILLIONS of fags, and TONNES of tobacco per year from people who are so gulible as to believe that old wives tale.

    They always have police escort because Zoll (Customs) are not allowed to "give chase" with a motor vehicle, should they do a runner. I have done the escort job MANY times, and seen the siezures.

    Same at the Polish and czeck borders. (ALSO E.U).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well my fellow posters, I humbly stand corrected on all points ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Regular Tripper ... no, actually your first paragraph is correct. UKBA/HMRC do have targets and have adopted draconian illegal and immoral tactics to achieve them. They actually dont care about the legality of the seizures as the policy they are really enacting is a policy of disruption. This is to frighten and intimidate cross-border shoppers from ever shopping in the EU again. Even if you win your appeal, you've gone through a couple of months grief, inconvienience and expence to get them back. ln all probability they will say that your goods were destroyed because they are perishable (utter joke and is another 'Sked') and you'll only get the value of the goods at point of purchase. lt's perverse!

    One has to go PREPARED and audio RECORD everything. lt is the ONLY way.

    Anon 02.09 ... the big 'names' won't go near it. Freedom 2 Choose tried but only a small number were interested. The UKBA/HMRC scare tactics works on the big 'names' as well as the shopper. Also the coach companies have no grit either ... majority do UKBA/HMRC's work for them!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Furor ... yes, true. As for Poland they have a massive problem at their border with the Ukraine. Smuggled tobacco/cigarettes pour in with many Polish Customs turning a blind eye. This blind eye is caused by a wedge of notes in the back pocket. The Russians are very very good at this but they certainly don't use cross-border shoppers to achieve it ... they use trucks and containers! ... as they do to get stuff into UK.

    ReplyDelete
  22. S.H. What no one can understand, including the customs lads themselves, is, that even when the fags/baccy are legaly tax stamped in Poland, also, "E.U baccy", so to speak, there are still limits.

    Berlin/Brandenburg Customs, and I presume Sachsen and Bayern as well, actualy cover most of their yearly running costs from the siezures of, what, according to E.U law, you would think was legaly imported tobacco products.

    Of ourse, no Government is going to cut it's own throat whilst getting away with having to pay for a whole arm of enforcement through it's chicanery (And when that is not spelled properly....guess what? I don't care. :-)) )

    ReplyDelete
  23. Another point that MAY be of interest. Holland is to ban the selling of hash to tourists in coffee shops.

    Not that any of you would ever smoke anything other than pure tobacco.....of course!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Furor ... l notice on Der Zoll website in regards to guidelines of 800 cigarettes, 3kg tobacco etc it still says "If you transport more than the above-mentioned amounts, you will be suspected of wanting to use the goods commercially. You can refute this suspicion by proving that you will use the good you have brought with you for private purposes."

    lnterestingly you have a guideline on coffee too ... 10kg? How strange.

    Can't see anything effecting the sale of hash in Holland to be honest. lt'll be ignored or locals will buy for them. The hash users are a community that look after themselves ... always have been and always will be.

    ReplyDelete
  25. XX Furor ... l notice on Der Zoll website in regards to guidelines of 800 cigarettes, 3kg tobacco etc it still says "If you transport more than the above-mentioned amounts, you will be suspected of wanting to use the goods commercially. You can refute this suspicion by proving that you will use the good you have brought with you for private purposes."XX

    Yes. But from what I read on this site, Britain sais similar....;-)

    XX Can't see anything effecting the sale of hash in Holland to be honest.XX

    It was first reported about 15:00 today. So the nrews may not have reached the whole world yet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Furor ... Yes so it would seem although the Zoll uses the word 'prove' whereas in the UK it's 'balance of probabilities'. Don't know how'd you would 'prove' it unless they come round to your house every week to check how much you have left. :)

    Sorry about hash sentence ... lost in translation m'thinks! I should have put 'l can't see how they could enforce such a law ...'

    ReplyDelete
  27. It leaves them open to accusations of "descrimination" for a start.

    As to the rest, in theory, it is illegal to buy alcohol for the under-aged. So similar HAS been enforced, even if not perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  28. HMRC ARE JUST A CRIMINAL GANG OF CORRUPT, VENAL THUGS .

    ReplyDelete

"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!