BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

More likely, they're guessing at who the people are...

The whole thing was a farce which the Judges dismissed with the contempt it deserved.

How can what a bunch of people say on an Internet forum have any bearing on whether a piece of primary legislation is, or is not, compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights?

I think HMRC did us a favour because it sounds like it was a bit of an own goal. Talk about clutching at straws!

[smalldog]

and as the judge quite rightly said motives and identities etc cannot be ascertained. For all the judges know some of the people on this forum could in fact be HMRC stooges pretending to be scheme users...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

and as the judge quite rightly said motives and identities etc cannot be ascertained. For all the judges know some of the people on this forum could in fact be HMRC stooges pretending to be scheme users...

I have a confession to make.

I'm really an HMRC

[Clownfish]

where to keep an eye out

Where can we keep an eye out for the judgement?

DR, is it maybe worth updating the front page, in the unlikely even that someone affected by BN66 doesnt look beyond the front page for updates?


cf

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Where can we keep an eye out for the judgement?

DR, is it maybe worth updating the front page, in the unlikely even that someone affected by BN66 doesnt look beyond the front page for updates?


cf

Thanks for reminding me. The judgment will be handed down in court and we should get notice the day before.

I will post details as soon as I hear anything.

[futurecat]

Feedback from Legal team

Hi,

For those individuals who attended both the original high court hearing and also last weeks court of appeal sessions.

- Did Montpeliers / PWCs briefs think that the judges were more receptive to the case than before or was it very similar to the last time?

- Did anyone speak to Montpeliers / PWCs briefs after the court of appeal sessions to obtain their thoughts on the chances of success?

God willing it will all go well. But would be good to have some feedback.

Apologies if this has already been communicated in the preceding posts.

Many thanks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi,

For those individuals who attended both the original high court hearing and also last weeks court of appeal sessions.

- Did Montpeliers / PWCs briefs think that the judges were more receptive to the case than before or was it very similar to the last time?

- Did anyone speak to Montpeliers / PWCs briefs after the court of appeal sessions to obtain their thoughts on the chances of success?

God willing it will all go well. But would be good to have some feedback.

Apologies if this has already been communicated in the preceding posts.

Many thanks

Trust me, it ain't worth speculating.

Everyone who was at the High Court, including our legal team, thought that hearing went well and then look what happened!!!

I wasn't present at the Court of Appeal but, from the sound of it, the Judges didn't give much away this time either. They were tougher on all 3 barristers but they gave no inkling of which way they were leaning.

Honestly I think it's best just to await the outcome.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Hi,

- Did anyone speak to Montpeliers / PWCs briefs after the court of appeal sessions

Weird though us Barcap chappies may be, intellectual conversations with crusty underpants is, perhaps, beyond even us.

Sorry, I'll get my hat and coat.

[futurecat]

Trust me, it ain't worth speculating.

Everyone who was at the High Court, including our legal team, thought that hearing went well and then look what happened!!!

I wasn't present at the Court of Appeal but, from the sound of it, the Judges didn't give much away this time either. They were tougher on all 3 barristers but they gave no inkling of which way they were leaning.

Honestly I think it's best just to await the outcome.

Thanks Donkey. You are right. I will be patient and wait.

[Fireship]

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.

Agreed, however it would’ve been nice to see HMRC put on the spot by asking for evidence of this which I seriously doubt they would’ve been able to provide (even if given sufficient time to retrieve the appropriate documentation) which would’ve shown them in rather a bad light….. After all there is a very big difference between suspecting someone’s identity and stating that you know who they are!!

If you can show someone is willing to make such wild claims without any basis in fact you can then start to question their entire decision making process based on their willingness to fudge the facts in their favour. With those sort of morals they’ll soon be introducing legislation without bothering to perform the required impact analysis because they suspect it’s not necessary – oh wait, they’ve already done that!!

I’m just glad the judges treated this with the contempt it so obviously deserved!