Cleary, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue & Customs

Courts hearing appeals should give reasons for their conclusions, even briefly, and advocates should remind the court of that duty where necessary. A failure to give reasons does not automatically require the decision to be quashed. Where the reasons can be inferred with sufficient certainty from the evidential material, and the decision was plainly open to the court, relief may be refused. Tobacco exceeding revenue guidance levels is not, by itself, determinative of whether it was imported for personal use. The quantity, frequency of importations, previous warnings and surrounding evidence may together justify a finding that the goods were imported for a commercial purpose.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Crown Court’s dismissal of his appeal against the condemnation of tobacco seized at Teesside Airport. The principal issue initially included whether the condemnation proceedings had been brought within the applicable six-month period, but permission was refused on that issue. The remaining issue was whether the Crown Court had given sufficient reasons for concluding that the tobacco was not imported for personal use.

The Crown Court’s recording of the hearing was incomplete and no reasons were available. The court therefore had to determine whether the decision should be set aside or whether the reasons could be inferred from the available evidence.

1. Application dismissed. The failure of the Crown Court to provide recorded reasons was unsatisfactory, but it did not require the decision to be quashed.
2. Courts hearing appeals have a duty to give conclusions and reasons. Parties or their advocates should draw the court’s attention to that duty if it appears to have been overlooked. Promptly obtaining brief reasons might have avoided the subsequent uncertainty.
3. The Crown Court’s conclusion could be inferred from the available material. It was manifestly open to the Crown Court to find that the third importation of a very large quantity of cigarettes was not for personal use, particularly in light of two earlier importations and a warning that similar quantities might be seized.
4. The quantity stated in revenue guidance was not itself conclusive. Unusually large personal requirements were theoretically possible, although the greater the quantity, the more difficult that explanation would be to substantiate. The assessment required consideration of the evidence as a whole.
5. The court declined to set aside the Crown Court’s decision. Costs were not awarded to the Revenue, in view of the failure to provide reasons, and permission to appeal was refused because there were no reasonable prospects of success and no point of principle.

The claim concerned the Crown Court’s dismissal on 11 June 2004 of the claimant’s appeal from the Magistrates’ decision of 13 November 2003. Permission to seek judicial review was granted on 12 July 2005, limited to the adequacy of the Crown Court’s reasons. The High Court dismissed the claim and refused permission to appeal.