Read this carefully and you'll see that this supposed experienced officer put a shoppers goods on the destruction list on April 5th 2005 AFTER the shopper won the appeal where she was offered compensation instead of giving her goods back. Compensation is only the value of the goods where they were bought from (Spain) and does not include travel costs or any other expenses. Her partner had been told previously that his goods had been placed on the destruction list on the 8th Dec 2004 (2 days AFTER Ian Sked received his appeal).
Both shoppers were offered 'compensation' because Ian Sked said their goods had been destroyed. The truth was that the goods were NOT destroyed till 27th May 2005 ... months after both shoppers had won their appeals. Not only did lan Sked rob these shoppers by offering them 'compensation' but the money he intended to pay them with is from the government's purse ... your taxes!
You'll also note that he says the UKBA/HMRC computer only logs when they were put on a destruction list ... not when they were 'destroyed' (yeah right)
Think l'm being too harsh? ... read on and see what the courts said about him another case
- Mr Sked's letter served to dishearten the F's and to discourage them from proceeding with the extant appeal against seizure. For what it may be worth we find the reasoning process in this letter to be wholly unreasonable, indeed perverse.
- The reasons offered by Mr Sked may be summarised as follows:-
- Towards the end of his letter Mr Sked states:-
i. The quantity
ii. The F's did not state the exact quantities during interview; this was because the Goods were not for their own use.
iii. Even if Mr F intended to give up smoking, it is not credible that he would not have imported a minimal quantity of his preferred brand.
iv. There were inconsistencies in the F's statements of their smoking habits.
v. Mr F ought to have known exactly how long his supply of cigarettes would last. His statement that if he gave up, the supply would last until April 2008 but if he did not the supply would last until September/October 2008.
vi. Likewise Mrs F ought to have known exactly how long her supply would last. She said a year but Mr Sked's calculations put the date at September 2008.
vii. Mr Sked calculates that on the basis of past purchases and consumption rates the F's ought to have had approximately 7900 cigarettes immediately prior to the F's January 2007 trip to Spain.
viii. Mr F did not know the cost of cigarettes in the UK.
ix. The F's financial circumstances were such that they could not finance the trip without being financially compensated.
x. The F's were not open and honest at all times during the interviews.
(The Judge went on to address Ian Sked's 'logic and reasoning') my editThe goods were therefore correctly seized under section 139(1) of CEMA and I uphold the seizure accordingly.
- As for Mr Sked's reasons in his letter dated 15/2/07 we have, insofar as his letter may be relevant to the decision we have to make, the following comments:-
i. Given the Fs' smoking habits, the quantity is not surprising;
ii. The absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it;
iii. B&H were his preferred brand. It is nowhere stated at interview that he would not smoke Silk Cut. It is understandable that not having his preferred brand at his home and readily accessible would encourage Mr F to refrain from smoking or at least cut down. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn from this evidence;
iv. What the notebook records is not 10-20, but 10, 20 or more. Mr Sked has misinterpreted the information provided to Customs by the F's;
v. It is absurd to suggest that Mr F should have known exactly how long his cigarettes would last;
vi. We do not consider that the information given was ever intended to be mathematically precise. Rather, the estimate was given under pressure in the heat of the moment;
vii. As previously indicated Mr Sked is giving these estimates a mathematical precision and accuracy which are not justified;
viii. This is hardly surprising as most if not all of his purchases were made abroad. If he were proposing to sell the cigarettes at profit the one piece of essential information would be the UK price otherwise how would he know that third party purchasers would be interested in buying. No adverse inference can reasonably be drawn;
ix. No basis is given for this speculative statement;
x. This is a general comment which we do not consider can be reasonably supported on the information available to Mr Sked.
My Note:- Ian Sked is still applying his 'trade' as an Appeals Officer. Both the cases above were from seizures at Glasgow Airport ... as was this one here.
Are you impressed at our Ian Sked?
