Unless things have changed...
HM Customs & Excise (as it was) officers hold the Queen's Warrant under terms that give them greater powers than the police. It means that in search and seizure situations, police are only there to prevent a breach of the peace. Customs officers can quite act like Rambo, and, as far as I am aware, without direct accountability. The police can't stop them. (That may now be wrong given the judgment and subsequent fallout.)
I have experience of aggressive VAT investigators seeking to exercise those powers and it is extremely unpleasant for all concerned.
The best defence in all circumstances where you believe there is likely to be unpleasantness (and even if you don't) is to tell the officer you will be recording all proceedings - if necessary on video. That usually calms the nut cases down when they realise recordings might be used as evidence of coercion. Or leaked to the press. Believe me, the press love these stories.
I learned this after one particularly acrimonious interview where the officer made a number of slanderous remarks which were subsequently denied. It was only when I stopped the investigation, refusing all further cooperation on MY part that reason kicked in.
Sometimes - and it is only sometimes - you just have to fight back with all means at your disposal.
But then remember customs officers often operate in the murky world of smuggling. It should not therefore be surprising they occasionally adopt a combative approach. But it's not always appropriate and that is what practitioners should guard against - inappropriate behaviour.
This case is an extreme example. If as seems the case, evidence was withheld and statements made to fit the case then the people concerned should be exposed, the processes that allow that kind of behaviour changed.
Customs may have a mucky job but the public deserves to have confidence in their integrity.
History repeating itself?
In November 2002 a major prosecution relating to evasion of duty on alcoholic drinks, connected to a bonded warehouse known as London City Bond, collapsed. HM Customs & Excise were severely criticised.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an independent enquiry by a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Butterfield.
The Butterfield Report, running to over 360 pages, was published in July 2003. It made numerous recommendations.
Now here we go again . . .
The result is all too obvious!
The Butterfield enquiry concluded that HM C&E (as it then was) had made a mess of things. Part of the problem related to lack of proper disclosure of evidence to the defence legal team.
The London City Bond cases related to alleged duty evasion occurring in the period from 1995 to 1998. The Butterfield Report in 2003 noted changes that had been made since 1998 - and in particular the new arrangements for prosecutions which already had come into effect in April 2002 following an earlier review (the Gower / Hammond Review).
Mr Justice Butterfield's opinion was that the changes already made went a long way towards dealing with the problems which led to the London City Bond fiasco. He made further recommendations intended to ensure that the necessary reforms were followed through to their logical conclusion.
Now. Lo and behold! A problem with lack of disclosure has led again to the collapse of a major trial and there is to be another investigation ...
David
Elephant in the room?
Is there a larger problem than incompetence?
Isn't apparent incompetence one of the "tells" we're supposed to be watching out for in money laundering?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?