Hull UKBA Officer Alistair Graham Fields and a Question of Perjury

We've finally received the UKBA data held on Mr/Mrs Donny by way of a Subject Access Request. This allows us to go back to the Jan 2012 court case in Doncaster where we beat the UKBA and study it more closely. Not 'it' exactly but the main witness against Mr/Mrs Donny ... Hull UKBA Officer Alistair Graham Fields. This was the Officer who produced all the 'evidence' and had seized Mr/Mrs Donny's goods.

Officer Alistair Graham Fields took the witness stand and was sworn in. He stated that he'd been a Customs Officer since 2004. His witness statement began with the following "This statement consisting of  7 pages each signed by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and l make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, l shall be liable to prosecution if l have wilfully stated in it anything which l now to be false or do not believe to be true'

His witness statement contained a written copy of his notebook and his account of the interview when he stopped Mr/Mrs Donny on the 18th May 2011 at Doncaster Airport. There were glaring inconsistencies in his account. Not only was the arithmetic completely wrong (surprisingly duplicated exactly by his fellow Officer Stephen Blake) but he'd added an extra 6000 cigarettes supposedly brought in by Mr/Mrs Donny on a previous occasion. Under cross-examination he retracted this and said it was an error. Not surprisingly there was no mention either of his aggressive and intimidatory manner claimed by Mr/Mrs Donny when he had initially interviewed and seized Mr/Mrs Donny's goods on the 18th May 2011. 

There is no need to dwell on this as it is viewed by the court as hearsay because there was no audio recording of the interview (Note :- see how important it is to record all UKBA interviews). Another strange statement from Officer Alistair Graham Fields whilst under cross-examination was that he had no idea what the A-J questions were. These are the questions UKBA ask people when they are stopped and interviewed. They have always been known as the A-J's but Officer Fields said they were the I-X's!!!! Anyway, enough of this, let's get to his 'evidence'.

Officer Fields produced this :-

In court, Officer Alistair Graham Fields stated that this was from the UKBA database and showed the Schedule of  Travel for Mr/Mrs Donny. In our view, this has the look of something produced by a 5yr old and printed in big bold font to look important and nothing more. Even ignoring that, there are 3 glaring faults:-

1. It shows travel 'details' of a non-existent trip to Fuengirola in May 2010. 

2. It shows a non-existent import of 20,000 cigarettes from this trip.

3. It does not show the trip to Zurich in June 2010 where Mr/Mrs brought just 200 cigarettes each back as Switzerland is not in the EU. So why no mention? It's there in the written statements of the interview. Mrs Donny categorically states 'Benidorm Feb 11, Menorca Sep 2010, Spain July 2010 and Switzerland June 2010. (underlined towards bottom of page). The more cynical amongst us would say that to include it would not back up one of Officer Field's reasons for seizure "Regular traveller, balance of probabilities brought in cigarettes on previous travels abroad"

Officer Alistair Graham Fields was pressed in court time and time again where this Schedule of Travel came from. He maintained that it was from the UKBA database. When asked to produce a printout,Officer Fields stated that neither the court nor the Donnys could have it because it was confidential operational intelligence and was not in the public interest to make it available!

When Officer Field was further pressed as to who printed this Schedule of travel out he started look very uncomfortable in our eyes. At one stage, he said it could've been him or someone else but he couldn't remember who. 

Judge Manning then stopped the court case for lunch. (At the end of the case in his summing up he said that he fully expected the UKBA to take this opportunity to produce a printout from the UKBA database as Doncaster Airport is only 7 miles away. Nothing was forthcoming.)

We won the case because UKBA could not produce any actual evidence at all. Also we showed that the public can request this data from UKBA database. We did this by producing an example of such but of course at that time it was not Mr/Mrs Donny's data ... it was ours. We also produced Mrs Donny's worksheet which showed she was at work at the Council offices during May 2010. We can now go further because now we have the true data on Mr/Mrs Donny.

The travel to Fuengirola in May 2010 simply does not exist and neither does the alleged import of 20,000 cigarettes. The trip to Switzerland is on the database too as are the rest and in rather more detail than Officer Field's  Schedule of Travel.

First page of Mr/Mrs Donny's Subject Access Request shows all stop and searches including the results. They also have reference numbers with ties them into the complete details of the stop and searches including copy of the notebooks. 

The UKBA database schedule of travel shows passenger name, gender, d.o.b, passport number, embarkation airport & disembarkation airport including dates, flight number. What it does not show is the resort ... there is no Fuengirola Airport! Nor Benidorm Airport! The database shows the airports only!

Here's the Switzerland trip. Compare this to Officer Alistair Graham Fields 'data' :-

You can see the rest of the data on Mr/Mrs Donny's travel here. You'll note they tie in exactly with what was said in the interview ... 'Benidorm Feb 11, Menorca Sep 2010, Spain July 2010 and Switzerland June 2010. Not forgetting the trip to Rhodes where they returned from on the 18th May 2011.

Airport codes are DSA (Doncaster Robin Hood Airport), EMA (East Midlands Airport), RHO (Rhodes Airport), ALC (Alicante Airport, Spain), MAH (Mahon Airport, Menorca), AGP (Malaga Airport, Spain), BHX (Birmingham Airport), ZRH (Zurich Airport, Switzerland).

As l mentioned before, Judge Manning commented on the lack of evidence that was failed to be produced by the UKBA. This was despite him giving them an opportunity to do so by having a long lunch break and Doncaster Airport only being 7 miles away.

He also said something else, he said "If this data had turned up from Doncaster Airport and it was found Mr and Mrs Donny were lying ... he would've charged them with perjury! 

Given with what we know now, one wonders how Judge Manning would react if he too was made aware of the documented facts????


One also has to wonder about other aspects of this case. Mr and Mrs Donny sent in a very detailed Appeal Against Seizure long before this ever got to court. their appeal in our view more than adequately addressed all the reasons for seizure Officer Alistair Graham Fields gave. 

However, Officer G A Wood at the National Post Seizure Unit in Plymouth took no heed and rubber stamped Officer Fields seizure and proceeded with Condemnation Proceedings.

This now goes into the hands of Barrister Ambureen Chaudray for and on the behalf of the Directorate of Border Revenue at the UKBA Legal Team, Beckett House, London. 


  1. Great work SH, send it to the judge cos they hate being lied to. This Fields has obviously been doing things like this for years and it's time he got his just desserts

  2. I should be surprised but nothing about these goonies surprises me any more. Very cleverly written by the way :-)

  3. What's the state of play on compo/return of goods? Have the Donnys got their purchases back or have the goods been destroyed?

    I assume they'll be offered the country-of-purchase price to start with and with have to fight to get the real value?

  4. Goods were destroyed and they were offered just country of purchase price. Seeing as UKBA lost all their arguments in court, full compensation is being sought. Someone else is helping them with that. No surprises that lawyers are coming out of the woodwork now to offer their services ... now that the Donnys have won!

    l hope Officer Field's will be needing lawyers soon. :)

  5. "No surprises that lawyers are coming out of the woodwork now to offer their services ..."

    Which is all to the good of our Cause...even if it might leave a slightly off 'note' in the mouth. If lawyers and especially the 'No Win No Fee' ilk start to realise that there is money to be made from UKBA cases then things will change and reforms made.

    Sure the UKBA/The Gov will try and 'reform' things to their advantage but they don't have much wriggle room thanks to EU law.

    At the very least two things will happen rather quickly. First off, Officers will be instructed to act more in accordance with the law and 'PACE' (even though it is a civil matter) as not to lose so many expensive cases. Secondly Officers like the ones named on this site who breach their own guidelines will find themselves facing internal disciplinary which point their own unions will start to scream..

    Compo-Chasing lawyers may be one of the lower forms of life on the planet BUT their greed is a useful weapon.

    I have discovered there is an Italian race.
    It's hald at MONZA every year and called the Italian Grand Prix

  7. Well that should alarm any UKBA wallahs reading this blog, especially the one called Fields. It'll be interesting to see how they react. Love the way you did this SH as l'm sure it was done especially for UKBA to read was it not?

  8. Of course the UKBA guards will claim ,they are only
    obeying "orders",carrying out commands from the State,
    something along the lines used by Guards at the
    Soviet Gulags and Nazi concentration Camps
    They are simply "authorised State Controlled Thieves"
    having failed miserably to stem the flood of illegal
    immigrants,terrorists,criminals and SMUGGLERS they
    seek glory picking on their own.
    As matter of interest,off subject
    Since January 1st 2011 Spain has added 683,606 to
    it's unemployment tally..Any suggestions why ?

    The Fuming Ferret

    1. How many jobs and businesses have these anti-smoking cretins lost? They never create anything ... they just destroy!

  9. From Dave Atherton

    Is Barrister Ambereen Chaudary a naughty girl?

    "Following a not guilty plea in the magistrates' court, disclosure should take place as soon as possible after a full file has been received. If the file received from the police does not contain all unused material schedules, these should be requested immediately in all cases."

    Yes, this is the Crown Prosecution Service's manual.

  10. Naughty girl part 2?

    "The prosecutor must therefore be in a position to comply with any request for advance information either before or at the first hearing. The defence advocates should, save in exceptional circumstances, expect to be ready to
    go through that material with the defendant and advise on venue, plea and any ancillary matters there and then without the need for an adjournment."

    1. We shall ask the questions to the relevant bodies, m'thinks! :)

  11. "Is Barrister Ambereen Chaudary a naughty girl?"

    Very likely she is but i'm GUESSING (cos I know fuck all about 'legalz') that we should look very carefully at the actual words she uses cos the name is the game as always.

    She says 'serve'...chances are that as it is a CIVIL matter not a criminal that they aren't required to serve evidence.

    I'm probably talking bollocks I know. Where's WOAR when she's needed?

    1. We'll have to take this further. l'm particularly interested in is why she allowed Fields 'evidence'. l feel certain that the UKBA Legal Team know exactly what the database of UKBA looks like ... and it definitely does not look like Fields A4 sheet! lnteresting times ... you will write to us when we are banged up, won't you? lol

    2. We will chuck butties and cigs over the wall for you (EU Duty paid of course and they will be gifts)

    3. I can't answer this one; just recently there seems to be a spate of 'making up the law as you go along and hope nobody challenges you'.

      Make it clear to the judge when you haven't had disclosure or if it was delivered so late that you could barely examine it, preparing the ground for a challenge on basis of an unfair procedure.

      As for public interest; the judge may seek further advice. It may be that UKBA can be allowed to give evidence to the bench in private to protect the public interest - although you'd expect to see that only in high-profile terrorism cases. Whether this could be extended to cover a dispute about tobacco for personal use seems doubtful, but recently various concepts have been stretched far beyond their original use.

      A prosecuting barrister is highly reliant on the evidence produced by the officials, whether civil or criminal. They must present it in good faith to the court. However, barristers trying to build a career do not appreciate being given inaccurate data as that makes them look silly when it is challenged. Any barrister - or any sensible person - would be annoyed if they thought they were being manipulated by being given the wrong data deliberately. Which I'm sure never, ever happens.

      However, it does seem very peculiar that mystery trips seem to have been interpolated and real trips left out. Just goes to show why disclosure is so important.

      UKBA have spent taxpayers' money on annoying citizens going about their lawful leisure and then, when it got to court, their evidence was so poor that it mostly could not be presented. The ball-park figure for a jury trial is usually quoted at £80k per day. A court without a jury will be cheaper, but there is still the cost of the building, the communications, the security, support staff, barristers, the judge - suppose we say half that? £40k, and that's just for the day in court, never mind the preparatory work.

      Ultimately, though, this is a political argument. The British Government doesn't like the terms of the treaties it has signed and is still trying to enforce the tariffs of a sovereign state. These cases are political show trials; the Crown doesn't care if its agents abuse the process because winning is not the point; rather, it hopes to intimidate people generally and thereby discourage them from exercising their treaty rights.

    4. Thank you WOAR. Indeed, we believe no doubt at all can be cast on Ms Hussain actions in court. However we cannot believe the same of the UKBA Legal Team that brought this action to court.

  12. The Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by hostile Indians.
    "Looks like we're in big trouble, Tonto"
    "What's with this "We", Paleface?"

    Baiting Customs Goons is one thing, SH. Personally, I am sure that all Barristers are pillars of rectitude, and any misunderstanding on our part will be cleared up by...

    Just a minute, someone is breaking my door down! Eek! I'll just c

    1. That's why l pop round to your place to write posts such as this Kimosabe. :)

  13. How many times has this goonie done this in court? You say he's been a goonie since 2004 so how many innocent people has he robbed? All his cases should be looked at.

    1. Along with LAZ THE DAZ (Nothing washes whiter) and the SKED. At some point the UKBA's own Internal Affairs, or whatever they are called, will have had enough and will want some answers from these officers.

    2. They only have Internal Decorators who make sure everything is completely whitewashed!

  14. Be it civil or criminal, full disclosure is required by law!


"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!