The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which made these unlawful and therefore prohibited were so different, he claimed it was necessary to have proved that he knew the nature of what he was importing.
Held: It was not necessary in that way. The prosecution must prove that he was importing goods subject to a prohibition, and his activities were directed at evading that prohibition. Lord Hutton: ‘The offence created by section 170(2)(b) of the 1979 Act is the offence of being ‘knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion … of any prohibition . . with respect to the goods’. The essence of the offence is being knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. The jury were fully entitled to find that the behaviour of the appellant satisfied them that he was knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. His behaviour in buying genuine video films of ‘Spartacus’ and ‘The Godfather Part 2′ in the airport shop at Amsterdam Airport and obtaining receipts for them, leaving the genuine video films in the lavatory at Heathrow, and then producing the receipts which appeared to relate to the two video films containing indecent material, pointed quite clearly to the conclusion that he knew that he was involved in the evasion of a prohibition against importation.’
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hutton
Times 20-Jul-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] UKHL 40, [2002] 2 AC 512, [2001] Crim LR 906, [2002] 1 Cr App R 1, [2001] 3 WLR 428, [2001] 4 All ER 97
Bailii, House of Lords
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b), Customs Consolidation Act 1876 42, Obscene Publications Act 1959 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise 1987
Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are ‘liable to forfeiture’ under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be . .
Approved – Regina v Hussain CACD 1969
The only mens rea necessary for proof of any offence of importing drugs was the knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. The accused must know ‘that what is on foot is the evasion of a prohibition against importation . .
Cited – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led . .
Cited – Regina v Taaffe HL 1984
For the purpose of section 170(2) of the 1979 Act a defendant must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be, such matter being an integral part of the inquiry as to whether he was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition . .
Cited by:
Cited – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 26-Jul-2005
The defendant argued that the 2003 Act was in breach of his article 8 rights. He had been registered as a sex offender, but the offence for which he had been convicted involved no proof of intention.
Held: The claimant having brought the . .
See Also – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Customs and Excise
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.88459
