Han and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 3 Jul 2001

The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied.
Held: The characterisation under the rules of such proceedings as civil was a starting point only. The fact that no sanction of imprisonment could apply was relevant but not determinative. In fact the allegation required proof of dishonesty, the potential penalties were substantial, and the purpose was punitive and deterrent. Rules relaxing the admissibility of evidence were convenient for the effective collection of taxes, but that was not a consideration when the proceedings were in their nature criminal.
Potter LJ, Mance LJ, Nourse Sir
Times 03-Aug-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1040, [2001] 1 WLR 2253
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1, Value Added Tax Act 1994 60(1), Finance Act 1994 8(1), VAT Tribunal Rules 1986
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .
CitedClingham (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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 January 2021; Ref: scu.159489