Customs and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates’ Court: QBD 2000

Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted ‘criminal proceedings’ within the meaning of section 19(1).
Held: ‘It is in my judgment the general understanding that criminal proceedings involve a formal accusation made on behalf of the state or by a private prosecutor that a defendant has committed a breach of the criminal law, and the state or the private prosecutor has instituted proceedings which may culminate in the conviction and condemnation of the defendant.’
References: [2002] 1 WLR 2020, [2000] 4 All ER 763
Judges: Lord Bingham CJ, Morison J
Statutes: Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina on the Application of South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Crown Court at Bradford CA 19-Dec-2003
    A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder.
    Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Civ 1857, Times 23-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1664, [2004] 1 All ER 1311)
  • Distinguished – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
    Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
    (Times 09-Mar-01, [2001] 1 WLR 1084, , [2001] EWCA Civ 281)
  • Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
    The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
    Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
    (, Times 21-Oct-02, , [2002] UKHL 39, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2003] 1 AC 787, [2002] 4 All ER 593, [2003] BLGR 57, [2002] 13 BHRC 482, (2002) 166 JPN 850, (2002) 166 JP 657, [2003] HLR 17, [2002] UKHRR 1286, [2003] 1 Cr App R 27)
  • Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
    MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
    (, [2007] UKHL 46, Times 06-Nov-07, [2007] 3 WLR 681, [2008] 1 AC 440)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.193782