Paul Kerbey v Director of Border Force
Decision date: 11 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 647 (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 is an appeal by Paul Kerbey against Border Force’s refusal to restore his lorry seized after herbal cannabis was found in boxes on 12 June 2020. The Tribunal held it had only a supervisory jurisdiction over the restoration decision, had to treat the seizure as lawful for the purposes of the appeal, and concluded Border Force’s reviewer (Mr Brenton) did not act unreasonably in applying the Restoration Policy and finding the appellant failed to take basic checks; the appeal was dismissed.
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
The Tribunal’s binding ratio is that on a CEMA/FA 1994 restoration appeal the First-tier Tribunal exercises supervisory review only — it must ask whether the decision‑maker could reasonably have reached the restoration refusal and may not re‑litigate the lawfulness of the seizure. Applying a restoration policy that presumes non‑restoration where drug quantity exceeds the policy threshold is not unreasonable if the decision‑maker reasonably assesses the carrier’s conduct and culpability (here, failure to take basic checks).
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 judgment contains non‑binding observations that lack of formal CMR‑compliant documentation can be evidence of a carrier’s failure to take reasonable care, and that COVID‑related precautions do not automatically excuse a carrier from conducting any inspection or basic checks where the carrier handled the goods and could have sought inspection.