Page 303 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 303

the net so wide that one is left to wonder what purpose is served by sub-s (2), for
                              it is difficult to think of any behaviour aimed at defrauding the customs and excise

                              that would not be caught by sub-s (1). However, sub-s  (2) has consistently

                              appeared in similar form in a succession of Customs and Excise Acts as the final
                              and sweeping up provision: see the Customs Consolidation Act 1853, s 232, the

                              Customs Consolidation Act 1876, s 186 and the Customs and Excise Act 1952, s
                              304(b).



                              We are satisfied that it was inserted by the draftsman with the intention of casting
                              his net as widely as words enabled him (note his language), 'in any person' and

                              'in any way'. This was the view of Lord Salmon expressed in DPP v Doot [1973] 1
                              All ER 940 at 954, [1973] AC 807 at 830-831. Lord Salmon was discussing the

                              construction of the Customs and Excise Act 1952, but for all material purposes
                              that is re-enacted in similar language in the present Act. He said:

                                     'Section 304 [and I interpolate to say that that is the equivalent of s 170 of

                                     the 1979 Act] is obviously a long stop for ss 45 and 56 to catch anyone
                                     against whom actual importing, exporting or being concerned in actual

                                     importing or exporting cannot be proved although no doubt it is wide
                                     enough to cover importing and exporting also.'”


                  Another important element of the offences is that concerning the phrases  “a fraudulent

               evasion”  and  “a fraudulent attempt at evasion”. With  this in mind, in  Attorney General’s

               Reference (No. 1 of 1981) [1982] 2 All ER 417, the Court gave the following guidance:


                              “In the result we have come to the conclusion that the presence of the word

                              ‘fraudulent’ in s 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 has the
                              effect that, in prosecutions under that provision for fraudulent evasion or

                              attempted evasion of a prohibition or restriction with respect to goods or duty
                              chargeable thereon, the prosecution must prove fraudulent conduct in the sense of

                              dishonest conduct deliberately intended to evade the prohibition or restriction
                              with respect to, or the duty chargeable on, goods as the case may be. There is no



                                                                                                 Page 13 of 21
   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308