Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



14-3-2013 5:54 pm  #1


Your Day in Court Part 3 ... in court.

I want to make this perfectly clear so all will understand. Whilst it is tempting to have a go at the BF Officer who seized your goods, l have to remind you that the object of being in court is to win the case and get your goods back! ln order for you to do that, you have to convince the judge that your case is sound.

He/she doesn't really care whether Officer Dibble was a complete and utter fatherless child in your opinion. What they will be looking at is the reasons for seizure and whether these were reasonable or not.

You play to the judge at all times!

Invariably we are talking about 3 main reasons used.

1. Can you afford them?

2. How many trips you've made and reasons for them.

3. The amount you've brought back and how long they will last.


Saying that, l'm not suggesting that you don't question Officer Dibble's credibility but don't dwell on it. Make your questions short and factual and try to keep the asnswers to a simple yes or no. Don't ask questions that you don't know the asnwers to!

Prosecution will open the case with a statement and then call the officer who seized your goods into the witness box. They'll ask said Officer Dibble questions and then it's your turn to cross-examine.

A few examples of how questions should be put -

Officer Dibble, did you not tell me that l could not record the interview?

OD ... I can't remember saying that.

Officer Dibble, l have a transcript my recording here (refer judge to page 17) so l ask you again, did you not tell me l could not record the interview?

(Judge then questions relevance of this line of questioning and you answer that you wish to show that Officer Dibble did not know his own regulations or simply disregarded them)

By the time you've reached court there should be quite a few openings you've found to question Officer Dibbles competancy. Pick a few but not all. Concentrate on the ones that you have FOI's etc to back up your questions and use them. Don't go overboard on this because you don't want the judge to fall asleep.

Then you go onto the main reasons for seizure. This is where you will win or lose your case.

1. Can you afford the purchase?

Officer Dibble, are you an accountant?

OD ... No

Yet you made a judgement on whether l could afford the goods, did you not?

OD ...Yes

You said l could not afford the goods in your opinion, did you not?

OD ... Yes

Officer Dibble, would you please look at this letter (get court official to hand him it and refer judge to page 21). lt's a letter from my accountant detailing my financial affairs. ln his professional capacity he concludes that l can afford the purchases.Do you disagree with his conclusion?

OD ... I can't say

Let me put it another way then Officer Dibble. ls not a professional accountant in a far better position to judge my financial affairs, than you. Yes or no?

OD ... Yes

Thank you, Officer Dibble

2. Trips abroad

Officer Dibble, in another of your reasons for seizure you state that l was evasive on the number of trips l made abroad, did you not? (refer judge to page 12).

OD ... Yes

You stated that l said 5 but you said there were 7 according to your records, did you not?

OD ... Yes

l said to you that l did not make 2 of these trips, did l not? Remember we have the transcript of my recording of the interview.

OD ... Yes

Officer Dibble, you chose not to believe me because you said there was no proof, did you not?

OD ... Yes

The 2 trips in question were bookings from Easyjet, were they not?

OD  .... Yes

Do you know the difference between bookings and actually taking the flights Officer Dibble? 

OD ... I don't understand

Oh l think you do Officer Dibble. Bookings are simply that, they are bookings. They are not records of flights taken. ls that not the case Officer Dibble?

OD ... I'm not sure.

Oh l think you are Officer Dibble. Please take a look at this letter (refer judge to page 50). It's a letter from my employer and the accounts dept where it states that on those dates you said l'd been abroad l was actually at work in Sheffield. l can't be in 2 places at once, can l?

OD ... No

Do you now accept that l didn't make those 2 trips abroad?

OD ...Yes

Thank you Officer Dibble. Now another reason you used was that on the 'balance of probabilities' that on those other 5 trips l brought back tobacco products. ls that not correct?

OD ... Yes

Do you have any actual proof of me bringing back excise goods on those occassions Officer Dibble? Yes or no?

OD ... No

Is it also not true that when you stop someone for excise goods and they have none, that you don't record the stop?

OD ... Sometimes

l'd say it's a little more often than that Officer Dibble wouldn't you? ... or shall l refer you to your own manual Officer Dibble (refer judge to manual ... highlighted) where it says that you don't record these stops? No need to answer that really as it's in your own manual.

Let me ask you another question. Taking all that into account, how can you possibly accuse anyone of bringing in excise goods on other trips when you don't record stops where people have no excise goods? You're opearating Catch 22, Officer Dibble are you not?


OD .... I don't understand

l think you do Officer Dibble ... l'm certain the court does too..

3. How much you've brought back and how long will they last.

Officer Dibble, is it not a fact that l can legally bring back as much EU Duty paid tobacco for personal use and gifts?

OD ... The guidelin ...

No no, Officer Dibble. I'm not interested in the guidelines they are irrelevant, l'm interested in the law. Can l bring back BY LAW as much as l want for personal use and gifts?

OD ...Yes

Thank you. Now in your calculations for how long my goods will last you came to 3 months ... yet, my calculations that l gave you at time of the seizure clearly show 6 months and it 's on an excel calculation sheet and my number of cigarettes from a 50g pouch is backed up by BS15592 Part 3 (refer judge to page 8). Your calculations are clearly wrong, why is that Officer Dibble?

OD ... I must've made a mistake

Yes you did Officer Dibble, you made quite a few did you not?

OD .................................

That's all Officer Dibble. Thank you.


Questioning finished.

Now prosecution come in and try and repair the damage you've just done to their case. Listen carefully because you also have the opportunity to come back after prosecution and stick the boot in again.http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png


Now it's your turn in the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecution. Don't be intimidated or get angry with prosecution ... they are just doing their job. Keep your answers short and ask to refer to your notes ... l'm sure Dibble will have done the same. After prosecution have finished, it's you that get the chance to repair any damage done by prosecution. They then have the chance to come back and stick the boot in!

After that you can make a statement (prosecution don't, they made one at the beginning) Try to keep it short and precise ... no more than one side of A4. Show the judge every reason they gave for seizure was wrong as you've just done in the questioning of Officer Dibble ... and you've done it by producing documented facts. Repeat these for the judge.

Then in it's in the hands of the judge. 

1st Draft


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
 

14-3-2013 11:47 pm  #2


Re: Your Day in Court Part 3 ... in court.

Smoking Hot wrote:

I want to make this perfectly clear so all will understand. Whilst it is tempting to have a go at the BF Officer who seized your goods, l have to remind you that the object of being in court is to win the case and get your goods back! ln order for you to do that, you have to convince the judge that your case is sound.

He/she doesn't really care whether Officer Dibble was a complete and utter fatherless child in your opinion. What they will be looking at is the reasons for seizure and whether these were reasonable or not.

You play to the judge at all times!

Invariably we are talking about 3 main reasons used.

1. Can you afford them?

2. How many trips you've made and reasons for them.

3. The amount you've brought back and how long they will last.


Saying that, l'm not suggesting that you don't question Officer Dibble's credibility but don't dwell on it. Make your questions short and factual and try to keep the asnswers to a simple yes or no. Don't ask questions that you don't know the asnwers to! Also you cannot make statements, you must ask questions. However you can word statements into questions.

Prosecution will open the case with a statement and then call the officer who seized your goods into the witness box. They'll ask said Officer Dibble questions and then it's your turn to cross-examine.

A few examples of how questions should be put -

Officer Dibble, did you not tell me that l could not record the interview?

OD ... I can't remember saying that.

Officer Dibble, l have a transcript my recording here (refer judge to page 17) so l ask you again, did you not tell me l could not record the interview?

(Judge then questions relevance of this line of questioning and you answer that you wish to show that Officer Dibble did not know his own regulations or simply disregarded them)

By the time you've reached court there should be quite a few openings you've found to question Officer Dibbles competancy. Pick a few but not all. Concentrate on the ones that you have FOI's etc to back up your questions and use them. Don't go overboard on this because you don't want the judge to fall asleep.

Then you go onto the main reasons for seizure. This is where you will win or lose your case.

1. Can you afford the purchase?

Officer Dibble, are you an accountant?

OD ... No

Yet you made a judgement on whether l could afford the goods, did you not?

OD ...Yes

You said l could not afford the goods in your opinion, did you not?

OD ... Yes

Officer Dibble, would you please look at this letter (get court official to hand him it and refer judge to page 21). lt's a letter from my accountant detailing my financial affairs. ln his professional capacity he concludes that l can afford the purchases.Do you disagree with his conclusion?

OD ... I can't say

Let me put it another way then Officer Dibble. ls not a professional accountant in a far better position to judge my financial affairs, than you. Yes or no?

OD ... Yes

Thank you, Officer Dibble

2. Trips abroad

Officer Dibble, in another of your reasons for seizure you state that l was evasive on the number of trips l made abroad, did you not? (refer judge to page 12).

OD ... Yes

You stated that l said 5 but you said there were 7 according to your records, did you not?

OD ... Yes

l said to you that l did not make 2 of these trips, did l not? Remember we have the transcript of my recording of the interview.

OD ... Yes

Officer Dibble, you chose not to believe me because you said there was no proof, did you not?

OD ... Yes

The 2 trips in question were bookings from Easyjet, were they not?

OD  .... Yes

Do you know the difference between bookings and actually taking the flights Officer Dibble? 

OD ... I don't understand

Oh l think you do Officer Dibble. Bookings are simply that, they are bookings. They are not records of flights taken. ls that not the case Officer Dibble?

OD ... I'm not sure.

Oh l think you are Officer Dibble. Please take a look at this letter (refer judge to page 50). It's a letter from my employer and the accounts dept where it states that on those dates that you said l'd been abroad l was actually at work in Sheffield. l can't be in 2 places at once, can l?

OD ... No

Do you now accept that l didn't make those 2 trips abroad?

OD ...Yes

Thank you Officer Dibble. Now another reason you used was that on the 'balance of probabilities' that on those other 5 trips l brought back tobacco products. ls that not correct?

OD ... Yes

Do you have any actual proof of me bringing back excise goods on those occassions Officer Dibble? Yes or no?

OD ... No

Is it also not true that when you stop someone for excise goods and they have none, that you don't record the stop?

OD ... Sometimes

l'd say it's a little more often than that Officer Dibble wouldn't you? ... or shall l refer you to your own manual Officer Dibble (refer judge to manual ... highlighted) where it says that you don't record these stops? No need to answer that really as it's in your own manual.

Let me ask you another question. Taking all that into account, how can you possibly accuse anyone of bringing in excise goods on other trips when you don't record stops where people have no excise goods? You're opearating Catch 22, Officer Dibble are you not?


OD .... I don't understand

l think you do Officer Dibble ... l'm certain the court does too..

3. How much you've brought back and how long will they last.

Officer Dibble, is it not a fact that l can legally bring back as much EU Duty paid tobacco for personal use and gifts?

OD ... The guidelin ...

No no, Officer Dibble. I'm not interested in the guidelines they are irrelevant, l'm interested in the law. Can l bring back BY LAW as much as l want for personal use and gifts?

OD ...Yes

Thank you. Now in your calculations for how long my goods will last you came to 3 months ... yet, my calculations that l gave you at time of the seizure clearly show 6 months and it 's on an excel calculation sheet and my number of cigarettes from a 50g pouch is backed up by BS15592 Part 3 (refer judge to page 8). Your calculations are clearly wrong, why is that Officer Dibble?

OD ... I must've made a mistake

Yes you did Officer Dibble, you made quite a few did you not?

OD .................................

That's all Officer Dibble. Thank you.


Questioning finished.

Now prosecution come in and try and repair the damage you've just done to their case. Listen carefully because you also have the opportunity to come back after prosecution and stick the boot in again.http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png


Now it's your turn in the witness box to be cross-examined by prosecution. Don't be intimidated or get angry with prosecution ... they are just doing their job. Keep your answers short and ask to refer to your notes ... l'm sure Dibble will have done the same. After prosecution have finished, it's you that get the chance to repair any damage done by prosecution. They then have the chance to come back and stick the boot in!

After that you can make a statement (prosecution don't, they made one at the beginning) Try to keep it short and precise ... no more than one side of A4. Show the judge every reason they gave for seizure was wrong as you've just done in the questioning of Officer Dibble ... and you've done it by producing documented facts. Repeat these for the judge.

Then in it's in the hands of the judge. 

1st Draft

 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

16-8-2014 9:42 pm  #3


Re: Your Day in Court Part 3 ... in court.

hi, are  you sure the prosecution can not sum up at the end , only you .i . i have just been browsing and came across your day in court ,, Arty51

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.