George Samuel Barr and Her Majesty's Commissioners of Custom and Excise
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] NIQB 131 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 23 October 2008 |
1
Neutral Citation No.:[2008] NIQB 131 Ref:
McCL7287
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
23/10/08
(subject to editorial corrections)*
2003 No. 3796
____________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
____________
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
____________
BETWEEN:
GEORGE SIMON BARR
PLAINTIFF;
-and-
HER MAJESTY'S COMMISSIONERS
OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
DEFENDANT.
_________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a somewhat unusual claim for redress by George Simon Barr,
the Plaintiff, who sues Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise
("HMCE") in the circumstances outlined below.
[2] The two forms of relief sought by the Plaintiff are damages and/or a
declaration. The Plaintiff's claim is brought under the Human Rights Act
1998 ("HRA 1998"). He claims that two of the protected Convention rights
enjoyed by him have been violated by the conduct of the Defendant's servants
and agents. Initially, he also sought a declaration of incompatibility, under
Section 4 of HRA 1998, in respect of certain statutory provisions. However,
upon the hearing of this action (on 6th October 2008), it was confirmed that the
Plaintiff no longer pursues this particular form of relief.
2
[3] The thrust of the Plaintiff's case is conveniently encapsulated in the
following extract from the Writ of Summons
"The Respondent [sic] detained, seized and destroyed
property belonging to the Plaintiff thus denying him
peaceful enjoyment of it. Further, by failing to issue
condemnation proceedings required by law within a
reasonable time, the Respondent deprived the Plaintiff of a
fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law."
As practitioners familiar with the machinery of HRA 1998 will quickly
appreciate, the two Convention rights engaged by the Plaintiff's claim are
those protected under Article 6 and Article 1 of The First Protocol.
II THE EVIDENCE: A SUMMARY
[4] Somewhat unconventionally, but appropriately in the particular
circumstances, the parties' respective cases were presented to the court in the
form of two agreed bundles of documentary evidence alone. There was no
examination-in-chief or cross-examination of any witness. Furthermore,
following certain exchanges with the court, the parties submitted an agreed
chronology of material dates and events. There were also skeleton arguments
from each party. The legal representatives concerned are to be commended
for adopting this approach. While I have considered the bundles of evidence
in their entirety, in my outline of the material facts below I shall confine
myself to what seems to me most significant.
[5] I would summarise the salient facts thus:
(a) On 5th March 1999, the Plaintiff, then a resident of Bangor in
Northern Ireland, travelled from Cairnryan, Scotland, to Larne,
Northern Ireland by ferry.
(b) Upon examining the Plaintiff's vehicle at Larne Harbour, HMCE
officers found a large, and visible, quantity of tobacco, cigarettes
and alcohol consisting of 27 kilograms of hand-rolling tobacco;
2,400 cigarettes; 11.2 litres of spirits; 135 litres of wine; 750
cigarillos; and 108 litres of beer.
(c) The Plaintiff agreed to submit to interview by HMCE officers.
During interview, he stated that he was the owner of the vehicle
in question; that he and his fellow passenger were the owners of
the goods; that they had purchased the goods during the course
of periodic visits to France and Belgium; that the goods were
partly duty free and duty paid; that the purchases were
designed exclusively for personal use; that the goods had cost
To continue reading
Request your trial