Bernie

HMRC

Didn't find your answer?

CPS says everyone is entitled to fair trail.

HMRC say wherever you are we will get you

Compare and contrast? 

Nick

Replies (13)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Hugo Fair
11th Jul 2022 21:53

I've been restricting any heavy strenuous work in the garden until the evening in order to avoid heatstroke ... but now fear that those precautions have been in vain.

Who or what is Bernie?

I like cryptic, but this has me stumped.

EDIT: just in time, I started trawling the articles on this site and came across the one about Mr. Ecclestone ... and as the fevered brow cooled a light dawned!
Now what was the question?

EDIT the 2nd: and now I see that the Aweb article is in the new & regrettable 'no comments allowed' style.

Sorry, Nick, that I've taken so long to catch-up but you're right, two-faced is only the start of it!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By carnmores
11th Jul 2022 21:51

You would make a good judge perhaps :-)

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
11th Jul 2022 22:09

As there are now 'live' criminal proceedings it would potentially be contempt of court to express any view on Mr Ecclestone's prospects.
All I would say is that it will be fascinating when it gets to court and I hope that will happen before his 100th birthday.
David

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
11th Jul 2022 22:28

I bow to your considerable knowledge & expertise, but the Aweb article only says "The CPS has reviewed a file of evidence from HMRC and has authorised a charge against Bernard Ecclestone .."

Does this announcement of intention amount to 'live' criminal proceedings?
And is it contempt of court if the comment/action has not yet (by definition) been expressly forbidden by the Judge (unless the action/comment can be shown to be deliberately prejudicial to the defendant's case)?
Otherwise how does P Eye manage to report (in detail) on ongoing SFO cases?

BTW I like your sardonic dig at the immense speed with which we can expect to see the case even reach court - let alone a decision, and then an appeal ...

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
David Winch
By David Winch
12th Jul 2022 06:43

Hi Hugo
Since the announcement indicates that the matter is likely to be before the Magistrates' Court on 22 August we can take it that this matter is now 'live'.
The prohibition on all but minimal comment does not arise from any requirement by a judge in the case, it arises from statute law which applies as soon as any case is 'live'.
I would think that the SFO cases to which you refer are investigations rather than 'live' proceedings, so the media can comment on those (subject of course to libel laws, etc).
The contempt laws are 'strict' liability offences, so an 'accidental' and unintended breach of this law is nevertheless punishable by the courts.
There is a useful article at https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/contempt-and-repor...

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
12th Jul 2022 11:10

Thanks, most helpful ... and I will try to temper my tendency to flippancy in public pronouncements.

But did anyone see https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61992802 less than a fortnight ago?
If I repeated here any of the direct quotes attributed to Bernie, then the Aweb mods would shut me down!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
11th Jul 2022 23:06

David, how are you?, my point was only concerned with the differing attitudes between HMRC and what seems the more prudent one of CPS, nothing more

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
David Winch
By David Winch
12th Jul 2022 06:58

Hi Carnmores
In relation to proceedings generally (and not specifically in relation to a particular case) the position is that HMRC can pursue a person for civil penalties - and if contested these penalties would be decided on a balance of probabilities - but HMRC cannot initiate criminal proceedings without going through the CPS.
The CPS have various criteria which a case must meet before they will authorise the commencement of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings of course a jury or Magistrates must be 'sure' of a person's guilt before convicting.
So the hurdle to commence criminal proceedings is set higher than it is for civil penalties.
David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Open all hours
12th Jul 2022 07:24

Deleted for cautious legal reasons

Thanks (1)
Replying to Open all hours:
avatar
By carnmores
12th Jul 2022 08:50

was that about the cunning Stunt?

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By amycollier2893
12th Jul 2022 11:25

You may say that but I could not possibly comment.

Thanks (0)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jul 2022 08:57

Lets hope the CPS & HMRC are up to the job.

Their record in such matters is really not good.

On a macro level it seems very hard to land any sort of financial prosecution in the UK, and it seems that is deliberate policy to make London "competitive". Or to read between the lines, very lightly regulated, with virtually non-existence enforcement other than 'decorative' compliance and form filling such as our beloved (and more or less completely pointless) money laundering regulations where genuine reports of actual tax fraud are ignored by the authorities, but those not making such reports can land big fines.

London is not the money laundering capital of the world by pure accident.

Thanks (1)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
13th Jul 2022 10:15

Bernie, and he owned the fastest milk cart in the west.

Thanks (0)