In cases involving repeated, and continuing abuse of the personal import allowances system, courts should pay less attention to mitigating factors. The standards for prison terms for different values and the court gave giuidance as to when consecutive offences were correct.
Rose VP CACD LJ, Butterfield, Richards JJ
Gazette 03-Jun-1998, Times 07-May-1998,  EWCA Crim 1450,  3 All ER 618,  1Cr App R (S)107,  Crim LR 593,  1 Cr App R 371
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Basra CACD 22-Feb-2002
The defendant appealed his sentence for a substantial money laundering offence. The antecedent offence was that of fraudulent evasion of VAT
Held: The maximum sentence for the antecedent offence was seven years, and for the offence under s93A, . .
Modified – Regina v Czyzewski; Regina v Bryan; Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Diafi; Regina v Ward CACD 16-Jul-2003
The court set down detailed guidelines for sentencing for smuggling, but stated they were not to be treated as a straitjacket.
Held: The principle factors will be the level of duty evaded, the sophistication of methods used, the defendant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Neal, Hood CACD 28-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed sentence for having been involved in the large scale importation of cigarettes evading customs duty.
Held: The judge had paid proper attention to Dosanjh. Having regard also to Czyzewski, the sentences were within the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2021; Ref: scu.154324