Taylor & Anor v R.

Taylor & Anor v R.

Both appellants exercised de facto and legal control over the cigarettes at the excise duty point and thus 'held' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001. Alternatively, they caused the goods to reach the excise duty point under Regulation 13(3)(e). These bases of liability are consistent with Article 7(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC. The confiscation orders, adjusted to the amount of excise duty evaded, are lawful and proportionate under both domestic and EU law.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Taylor; Appellant: Robert Wood; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Excise Duty Evasion, Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Regulations, Compatibility With EU Directive 92/12/eec, Proportionality of Confiscation Orders
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Tax Law European Union Law Confiscation Orders Excise Duty Evasion Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Regulations Compatibility With EU Directive 92/12/eec +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Taylor

Appellant

Robert Wood

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were liable to pay excise duty under Regulation 13 of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001
  2. 2 Whether the basis of liability under Regulation 13 is compatible with Article 7(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC
  3. 3 Whether the United Kingdom may impose liability to pay excise duty on a basis not corresponding with Article 7(3) of the Directive

Ratio Decidendi

Both appellants exercised de facto and legal control over the cigarettes at the excise duty point and thus 'held' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001. Alternatively, they caused the goods to reach the excise duty point under Regulation 13(3)(e). These bases of liability are consistent with Article 7(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC. The confiscation orders, adjusted to the amount of excise duty evaded, are lawful and proportionate under both domestic and EU law.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation orders against both appellants affirmed in the adjusted amount of £95,730 each