Grzegorz Szczepaniak v Director of Border Revenue
Decision date: 10 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 416 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned Border Force’s refusal to restore a lorry and trailer from which 2,687,800 concealed cigarettes were seized and whether the reviewer’s decision applying Part C(2) of the Border Force Restoration Policy was one the Force could reasonably have arrived at. The First-tier Tribunal reheard the facts, found Mr Szczepaniak complicit in large‑scale smuggling, held Officer Hodge’s application of Part C(2) and refusal to restore were reasonable and proportionate, and dismissed the appeal.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
On the facts found, where substantial organised commercial smuggling is shown and the vehicle operator fails to demonstrate non‑complicity or adequate checks, a refusal to restore under Part C(2) of the Border Force Restoration Policy can be a reasonable and proportionate exercise of the reviewer’s discretion. The FTT may rehear and make primary findings of fact on appeal from a review decision and then assess whether that review decision could reasonably have been reached.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal indicated that the question whether Border Force should publish its restoration policy was not material where the appellant is found complicit in large‑scale smuggling. It also observed that a witness statement that merely adopts or agrees with a reviewer’s decision is opinion evidence and does not substitute for the Tribunal’s independent assessment of the reasonableness of that decision.