BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TAF4]

One would think that with three judges of a higher standing the whole sorry mess will come under more thorough scrutiny next time out.

You would hope so but in this case they are only going to be asked to rule on the very narrow A1P1 ECHR question.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You would hope so but in this case they are only going to be asked to rule on the very narrow A1P1 ECHR question.

I'm not sure how the Court can do that without taking into account at least some of the history.

For example, the situation would have been very different if HMRC had drawn our attention to Padmore/1987-retro much earlier than 2008. The fact that this was never mentioned in any of the technical arguments they intended taking forward to the Commissioners must have some relevance.

[normalbloke]

...but we are appealing against a judgment

You would hope so but in this case they are only going to be asked to rule on the very narrow A1P1 ECHR question.

But surely as we are appealing against Parker's judgment, they will look at what caused him to make that judgement? That by definition would imply looking at both sides' arguments again.. or am I reading it totally wrongly?

[smalldog]

But surely as we are appealing against Parker's judgment, they will look at what caused him to make that judgement? That by definition would imply looking at both sides' arguments again.. or am I reading it totally wrongly?

I would say for any court to make a judgement on whether HMRC breached HR rules or not they would have to trawl through the entire case from day 1 to where we are now. Only by scrutinizing detailed decisions, procedures and actions could they make such a judgement...IMHO

For example, they could have breached our HR by not acting within what would be considered an appropriate timescale to act upon a certain point in question. They will only know all the points and procedures that got us here by picking through everything HMRC has done to date, and continues to do. Thats going to be a nice little pandoras box to open, and I cant wait to see HMRC wriggle when asked some very pointed questions about their own governance and reasoning !!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But surely as we are appealing against Parker's judgment, they will look at what caused him to make that judgement? That by definition would imply looking at both sides' arguments again.. or am I reading it totally wrongly?

I am expecting it to be a lot more focused than the hearing in January. Anyone who was present then will recall how much of the 2 days was spent on minutiae eg. wading through Huitson's tax returns, going over every single item of correspondence with the Revenue and even reading out posts off this forum from the likes of "bollox" and "maddog".

I'm sure there will be more emphasis this time on the actual convention and previous case law rather than "irrelevant trivia".

Also, we mustn't forget that PwC's case (Article 56 EU Treaty - free movement of capital) will be heard at the same time, so the judges will have to move things along pretty swiftly.

[smalldog]

I am expecting it to be a lot more focused than the hearing in January. Anyone who was present then will recall how much of the 2 days was spent on minutiae eg. wading through Huitson's tax returns, going over every single item of correspondence with the Revenue and even reading out posts off this forum from the likes of "bollox" and "maddog".

I'm sure there will be more emphasis this time on the actual convention and previous case law rather than "irrelevant trivia".

Also, we mustn't forget that PwC's case (Article 56 EU Treaty - free movement of capital) will be heard at the same time, so the judges will have to move things along pretty swiftly.

I agree DR, its going to be fascinating whatever the outcome....I can see it taking them quite a while to pick over everything. I expect HMRC are going to have their hands full getting all the required info together

[Maddog]

.....and even reading out posts off this forum from the likes of "bollox" and "maddog".

Did I get a mention in court last time ? I feel honoured.

Which one of my words of wisdom did they pick up on ?

Mad

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Did I get a mention in court last time ? I feel honoured.

Which one of my words of wisdom did they pick up on ?

Mad

It was totally surreal listening to one of the country's leading human rights barristers reading out barely grammatical mutterings off an internet forum.

I was waiting for him to say "bollox" but disappointingly he didn't refer to people's usernames. He just said "one person wrote this", "someone else added this", "another person said this"...

Hopefully the Court of Appeal will not stand for any similar nonsense.

[bollox]

It was totally surreal listening to one of the country's leading human rights barristers reading out barely grammatical mutterings off an internet forum.

I was waiting for him to say "bollox" but disappointingly he didn't refer to people's usernames. He just said "one person wrote this", "someone else added this", "another person said this"...

Hopefully the Court of Appeal will not stand for any similar nonsense.

unfortunately our mate Judge P just seemed to lap it up

as far as i recall our Barrister couldnt believe this sort of tripe was being served up as evidence that we "knew the risks involved"

sums up the whole sorry affair, i took a week off expecting to see good old british justice slice through this garbage, couldnt of been further from the reality..

naively though a court of law meant you were judged by the law (at the time of the offence occuring obviously)

lets hope its better next time.........

[smalldog]

unfortunately our mate Judge P just seemed to lap it up

as far as i recall our Barrister couldnt believe this sort of tripe was being served up as evidence that we "knew the risks involved"

sums up the whole sorry affair, i took a week off expecting to see good old british justice slice through this garbage, couldnt of been further from the reality..

naively though a court of law meant you were judged by the law (at the time of the offence occuring obviously)

lets hope its better next time.........

So, you mean to tell me that the HMRC barrister used a quote from this forum to legitimize HMRC's actions? So, in theory if I go onto any forum, anwhere and state "in my view such and such happened and in my view quite rightly" then that statement becomes actual fact and what somehow becomes law??? un F***ing believable!!!!

In which case, I am going to go onto a motorists forum and open a thread that states "in my view the motorway speed limit should be 100MPH", in theory then, and using our case as a comparison, at some point my statement could be read out by a defending barrister in a speeding case. "My lord, smalldog from the motorists speeding forum goes on to state that the speed limit should be 100MPH, we therefore submit that our client is within his writes to travel at the said 100MPH". The judge, "well if that was on a forum it must be true and we therefore drop the speeding charges as obviously Mr Smalldog knows what is right and wrong and legitimizes your clients rights to travel at the said 100MPH" case closed..

THAT IS THE CRUX OF IT!!!!


the implications are hilarious, Judge P should hang his head in shame over this!! The implications being that what is said on a public forum contributes to case law in the high court??

Press headline: " Public Internet Forums rewrite the statute books"

The latest case of which being forum member "Sausage King" from the Sausage appreciation society forum deemd it improper to apply mustard to a Pork and Apple Duchy sausage. The high court upheld his views submitted in evidence at a recent court case and legislated that from 6th September anyone found doing so would be prosecuted..."