Home of N2D.

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



18-3-2013 6:41 pm  #1


Opinions please.

In addition to SH's excellent writeup on court procedure and not meant in any way to conflict with it:-

I remember being in court on 1 occasion representing the Licensed Victuallers Association as their chairman and objecting to the grant of a licence to a new Yates's wine bar. Their Chief Exec went on the stand to give evidence helped by his barrister.After this I stood up and said 'no questions'. The barrister then brought on the company surveyor, same thing 'no questions'. At this the barrister had an extremely puzzled look on her face and it quite threw her off her closing speech. I then made my closing speech giving the reasons why the licence should not be granted. There was no point in cross examining as I could not disprove any of the evidence.

Bringing this into the context of condemnation hearings is it always the best option to cross examine the customs officer?
My point is if you think you are not confident enough and little is to be gained by cross examining would it not be better to address the points in contention in your closing speech? I guess it's a gamble but might it be a better option for some?


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

18-3-2013 7:09 pm  #2


Re: Opinions please.

Clever but dangerous!!!

 

18-3-2013 7:18 pm  #3


Re: Opinions please.

I meant to add you could do yourself some damage if you were cross examining and got it wrong as well as pissing off the judge.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

18-3-2013 7:40 pm  #4


Re: Opinions please.

A one time friend of mine was caught robbing a supermarket and he was armed with a 9mm pistol. Two Polzei turned up, by chance. Both coppers drew their regulation side arms, as per regulations but somehow the copper at the rear managed to shoot his front man in the leg! 

In court the 'shooter' policeman claimed my friend had been the one who shot his colleague in the back of his leg...despite that being a physical impossibilty and all the evidence proving beyond doubt etc

The Judges believed the perjuring copper and my friend went down for a long stretch for shooting a policeman in the execution of his duties, in addition to the tariff for knocking off the local Lidls!

My point?

Courts, no matter which country, will always tend to believe an Officer of the law (even if the law in question is only CEMA!). They will also believe that what he wrote in his notebook is the gospel truth.

You HAVE to break their Worships' faith in the Uniform (why do you think Officers turn up in full dress?). 

EAzy, your tatic is a very good one for CIVIL cases-I mean for genuinely civil cases. Condemnation proceedings may be a civil matter according to the Act but in reality they are as close to a criminal case under the Napoleanic Code as you will get in this country.

*my 2ps worth for what it is worth*

Last edited by The Blocked Dwarf (18-3-2013 7:41 pm)


"I, uh, let her out the trunk...heard what, err, She snarled at THEM...."

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

18-3-2013 7:47 pm  #5


Re: Opinions please.

Point taken chaps. My thoughts were if the issues were for example, the officer stated that in his opinion you couldn't afford the goods and you had an accountants certificate proving that you could, you would only have to present it to the court to prove your point.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

18-3-2013 9:34 pm  #6


Re: Opinions please.

eezyrider wrote:

Point taken chaps. My thoughts were if the issues were for example, the officer stated that in his opinion you couldn't afford the goods and you had an accountants certificate proving that you could, you would only have to present it to the court to prove your point.

More effective would be under the officers cross-examination to hand him a copy (and the judge) and ask him if he disagreed with said letter. lf he says he does then you ask him what qualifications he has to make such a statement that contradicts a certified accountant? http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png


As l put previously they only have a limited number of reasons to seize. Destroy them with facts, documents etc etc and you should be home dry.

We can supply the weapons but you have to know how to use them. lt's like a gun, it just becomes a metal club if you can't load, aim and fire it!
 


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.
 

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.