Chambers, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 2467 (17 October 2008)

Chambers, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 2467 (17 October 2008)

The confiscation order must be quashed because the prosecution relied on the wrong statutory regulations (Excise Goods Regulations 1992) instead of the correct Tobacco Product Regulations 2001, and no finding of fact was made as to whether the appellant caused the tobacco products to reach an excise duty point. The court cannot make such a finding on appeal, and the prosecution failed to establish liability under the correct regulations.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Crim 2467
Parties
Appellant: William Chambers; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Excise Duty Evasion, Statutory Interpretation, Access to Legislation
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Customs and Excise Confiscation Order Excise Duty Evasion Statutory Interpretation Access to Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Chambers

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was liable for excise duty under the correct statutory regulations
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order was valid given the misapplication of regulations
  3. 3 Effect of basis of plea and absence of Newton hearing in confiscation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order must be quashed because the prosecution relied on the wrong statutory regulations (Excise Goods Regulations 1992) instead of the correct Tobacco Product Regulations 2001, and no finding of fact was made as to whether the appellant caused the tobacco products to reach an excise duty point. The court cannot make such a finding on appeal, and the prosecution failed to establish liability under the correct regulations.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • confiscation order quashed
  • judgment to be made available to Dennard's advisers for consideration of further action