BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Vallah]

I think everybody that used the Montpelier scheme should retrospectively decide that they didn't use the scheme after all, and did in fact use a scheme that hasn't been attacked retrospectively.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hmmm. I seem to recall that something like that happened in the lower court. Let's not get our hopes up.

Indeed.

The Judges didn't really give much away, so there's no way of telling which way it will go.

[SantaClaus]

Indeed.

The Judges didn't really give much away, so there's no way of telling which way it will go.

Being serious for a moment, completely agree. Parker seemed very amenable to our case, yet he came up with a verdict in favour of HMRC's completely wooly argument. Who knows how the judge's minds work.

Still, no harm in poking a bit of fun at Her Majesties Revenue Conmen on a friday.

[Morlock]

For HMRC / Singh to stand in a court of law and state they “know who we all are” is a blatant lie.

Firstly not all posters are connected to MP in any way hence aren’t on HMRC’s radar, how would they know who these people are??

Secondly it would be impossible to identify all users of the forum unless admin was handed a court order to provide details, even then a user would’ve had to provide sufficient details about themselves to make a positive identification possible. Could they trace your IP address, yes they could but that would require another court order for ISP’s to hand over the details. Even then they wouldn’t necessarily yield anything – they can trace certain IP’s as much as they like, the trail will go very cold when it ends with a multi-tiered NAT’d solution in a country that doesn’t give a stuff about the UK authorities!

So basically, without a monumental amount of time and effort HMRC would never be able to identify us, even then it would be impossible to identify all of us!!

Don’t get me wrong, I have no wish or need to conceal my identity, it’s just clear to me that this forum is full of users who know a lot more about this stuff than they do – most of us do this for a living!!! And that being the case it’s clear to me that to stand up in court and state they “know who we all are” is a lie! Fact! Had it not been they would’ve submitted evidence the to the contrary and been allowed to continue.

Where am I going with this? Well to me it’s clear that HMRC have lied in court and that being the case:

1) Lying in court / perjury is illegal, they should throw the book at them.
2) These clowns are willing to lie in court which shows the kind of people we are dealing with! I only hope the judges recognise their lack of moral fortitude and the resulting manner in which we have been treated!

It wouldn't be perjury unless Singh were giving evidence on oath (which I doubt, since he's the defence barrister not a witness). However if he made a statement which he knew to be untrue with the intention of thus influencing the verdict, then this would be "perverting the course of justice" which is a criminal offence. In the first instance it should be reported to the police.

Bear in mind though that Singh may only have been referring to the authors of the particular posts which he read out (rather than everybody on the forum), and if these are small in number then it's entirely possible that HMRC may indeed have been able to deduce identities. In which case Mr Singh was telling the truth.

[Squicker]

Indeed.

The Judges didn't really give much away, so there's no way of telling which way it will go.

I imagine they don't really know what way the law will slice and dice it until they retire with the evidence from both sides and run it through the existing law, comparing it to prior cases etc.

It's entirely feasible Parker was sympathetic to our case at the hearing but upon running it over at leisure, he found the law was leading him a different way to that which he immediately thought at the hearing.

One could end up in a situation where a judge is hugely sympathetic to a appellant but the law simply dictates a certain, sometimes counter-intuitive, outcome.

[SantaClaus]

It wouldn't be perjury unless Singh were giving evidence on oath (which I doubt, since he's the defence barrister not a witness). However if he made a statement which he knew to be untrue with the intention of thus influencing the verdict, then this would be "perverting the course of justice" which is a criminal offence. In the first instance it should be reported to the police.

Bear in mind though that Singh may only have been referring to the authors of the particular posts which he read out (rather than everybody on the forum), and if these are small in number then it's entirely possible that HMRC may indeed have been able to deduce identities. In which case Mr Singh was telling the truth.

What is quite amazing is Singh claims to be a "human rights" lawyer. Yet he is fighting for the removal of a human right.

I guess where money is to be made, people are only too happy to drop their morals.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's entirely feasible Parker was sympathetic to our case at the hearing but upon running it over at leisure, he found the law was leading him a different way to that which he immediately thought at the hearing.

Hmmm, not so sure.

Personally, I think he knew which way it had to go before he even stepped into court.

Obviously he would want to give the impression of having a somewhat open mind but that doesn't mean he had.

The CoA hearing was different. From the sound of it, the judges gave all 3 barristers a fairly rough ride.

[normalbloke]

I imagine they don't really know what way the law will slice and dice it until they retire with the evidence from both sides and run it through the existing law, comparing it to prior cases etc.

It's entirely feasible Parker was sympathetic to our case at the hearing but upon running it over at leisure, he found the law was leading him a different way to that which he immediately thought at the hearing.

One could end up in a situation where a judge is hugely sympathetic to a appellant but the law simply dictates a certain, sometimes counter-intuitive, outcome.

But that wasn't the case with Parker. His own subjective moral compass appeared and led him in an entirely different direction to that of studying the law, in my opinion. All this bs about fair share of tax blah blah which is purely subjective and has a multitude of interpretations.

[Squicker]

What is quite amazing is Singh claims to be a "human rights" lawyer. Yet he is fighting for the removal of a human right.

I guess where money is to be made, people are only too happy to drop their morals.

Well no, because a human rights lawyer is merely a specialist in human rights. Remember, that people get into law because they believe that by upholding the legal process they are making the world a better place.

In the same way that a lawyer will defend a child killer he suspects is guilty (because if that killer was not defended the case would crumble and the killer would walk) Singh may well be of the personal opinion that HMRC are completely taking the piss out of our human rights, but because the law requires that all cases are presented and defended equally, he will act because that serves the greater purposes of ensuring the justice system remains a fairly level playing field (in the greater scheme of things).

[Squicker]

But that wasn't the case with Parker. His own subjective moral compass appeared and led him in an entirely different direction to that of studying the law, in my opinion. All this bs about fair share of tax blah blah which is purely subjective and has a multitude of interpretations.

It certainly did come across like that, reading the transcript, didn't it? Hence we have access to the COA to level out that sort of personal intepretation.