Customs & Excise v Atkinson

In condemnation proceedings, the validity of the initial interception is separate from the liability of goods to forfeiture. An unlawful stop or search does not automatically invalidate a subsequent seizure. The court must determine whether the goods were liable to forfeiture under the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979. If they were, the condemnation court must condemn them, regardless of the reasons for, or lawfulness of, the initial interception.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Dover Justices dated 22 August 2002. The Justices had followed the Divisional Court’s decision in R (Hoverspeed Limited) v Customs & Excise Commissioners [2002] 3 WLR 1219 and concluded that goods could not lawfully be seized after an interception unsupported by reasonable grounds.

After that decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the relevant conclusion in Hoverspeed. The issue was whether the reasons for, and lawfulness of, the initial interception affected condemnation proceedings or necessarily invalidated the seizure of goods which were in fact liable to forfeiture.

1. Appeal allowed. The decision of the Dover Justices was quashed and the matter was remitted for determination of whether the seized goods and the Volvo motor car were liable to forfeiture under the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979.
2. The Court adopted the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R (Hoverspeed Limited) v Customs & Excise Commissioners [2002] 3 WLR 1219. The seizure powers under sections 49(1)(a), 139(1), 141(1) and Schedule 3 were not made conditional upon the lawful exercise of separate powers to stop and search under sections 163 and 163A.
3. The power of seizure depended on the goods being liable to forfeiture. It could be exercised even where no search was necessary. Once seizure was challenged in condemnation proceedings, the court had to condemn the goods if it found that they were liable to forfeiture, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Schedule 3.
4. Accordingly, the reasons for the initial interception, the legal basis for it, and whether the interception was lawful were irrelevant to the condemnation issue. An unlawful interception did not necessarily make the subsequent seizure unlawful and did not bar condemnation where the goods were in fact liable to forfeiture.
5. All four questions posed by the case stated were answered in the negative. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated from the Dover Justices’ decision dated 22 August 2002. The Justices’ decision was quashed and the matter remitted.
• Court of Appeal: The judgment records that the Court of Appeal had overturned the material conclusion of the Divisional Court in R (Hoverspeed Limited) v Customs & Excise Commissioners [2002] 3 WLR 1219.