Customs & Excise v Atkinson

Customs & Excise v Atkinson

The lawfulness of the initial interception is irrelevant to the determination of whether goods are liable to forfeiture in condemnation proceedings; the only issue is whether the goods were in fact liable to forfeiture at the time of seizure.

Parties
Appellant: HM Customs & Excise; Respondent: Michael Atkinson; Respondent: Mark Anthony Dore; Respondent: Arthur Binns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; decision of the Justices quashed; case remitted for determination of liability to forfeiture
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Goods, Condemnation Proceedings, Lawfulness of Seizure, Stop and Search
Customs Law Criminal Procedure Forfeiture of Goods Condemnation Proceedings Lawfulness of Seizure Stop and Search

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Customs & Excise

Appellant

Michael Atkinson

Respondent

Mark Anthony Dore

Respondent

Arthur Binns

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lawfulness of the initial interception is relevant to condemnation proceedings under Schedule 3 to the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners must adduce evidence of the reasons for interception or its lawfulness
  3. 3 Whether an unlawful interception renders a subsequent seizure unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The lawfulness of the initial interception is irrelevant to the determination of whether goods are liable to forfeiture in condemnation proceedings; the only issue is whether the goods were in fact liable to forfeiture at the time of seizure.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; decision of the Justices quashed; case remitted for determination of liability to forfeiture

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Justices to determine whether the goods and car were liable to forfeiture under the Act
  • No order as to costs