Regina 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. At such interview admissions are accepted as a basis for settling civil liabiity, but expressly excluding compromise of any criminal action.
Held: The IR statement that the Code of Practice did not apply at this stage was incorrect. Plainly the officers suspected serious crime, and any practice allowing them to obtain evidence without first cautioning the defendant was wrong. However the admission of the evidence would not have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted it. The judge had adequately directed the jury as to the defendants domicile.
Mr Justice Astill Lord Justice Clarke The Common Serjeant
[2003] EWCA Crim 2256, Times 29-Aug-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003
Taxes Management Act 1970 105, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Barker CCA 1941
In the course of investigating the defendant for tax faud, he was interviewed by the Inland Revenue. Relying upon a standard statement by the revenue, the appellant produced two ledgers which had been fraudulently prepared in order to induce the . .
CitedRegina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedAllen v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Sep-2002
The court rejected as inadmissible an application challenging admissibility of evidence obtained from him by the Revenue either by compulsion or inducement.
Held: ‘The Court notes that in this case the applicant does not complain that the . .
CitedRegina v Okafor CACD 10-Nov-1993
The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in . .
CitedRegina v Absolam CACD 1990
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, ‘and put the drugs on the table’ he did so and admitted selling drugs.
Held: The procedure should . .
CitedRegina v Grannell CACD 1990
The complainat had seen the burglar/defendant, noted his car number and later identified the car to the police. He identified the defendant from a group identification, but the codes of practice were not followed.
Held: Though the Codes had . .
CitedRegina v Delaney CACD 11-Jan-1990
Delaney was 18 and with a low IQ. On first interview for indecent assault, he denied the offence, but later came to admit it. The police admitted first minimising the seriousness of the offence, but he alleged greater pressure, resulting in a later . .
CitedRegina v Quinn CACD 15-Mar-1994
Police must follow the published Code of Practice, when conducting identity parades, and may not substitute their own. If the evidence is allowed in despite the breach, the judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may . .
CitedHan 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 . .
CitedHenderson v Henderson 1967
The court considered what was required to establish a domicile at law: ‘First, clear evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. In particular, to displace the domicile of origin in favour of the domicile of choice, the standard of proof . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.184914