Undercover Customs

[JPaul]

I have just been informed, by lynx, that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise enter premises, including private dwelling houses as part of their investigations. That they do this without getting a search warrant. This was revealed in a factual documentary called Undercover Customs.

If this is the case I think that's appalling. Any entry should be with the use of a search warrant, signed by an independent Judge. There is no way that law enforcement should be allowed to do this sort of thing with there being checks and balances in place. There is no way we should have law enforcement agencies deciding that they are allowed to breach people's privacy and then just being able to do it, with applying to someone else to make the final decision.

[j2k4]

an independent Judge.

As opposed to the other kind? :huh:

[JPaul]

an independent Judge.

As opposed to the other kind? :huh:

Fair point, I just think it's a common use thing.

[j2k4]

Well, there are (here, anyway) a terrible lot of things that are just waiting to be abused.

If you want a real surprise, take a quick run through the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Insipid at best (and worst), it nonetheless strikes a chord with those whose only compulsion is an ever-expanding menu of rights "guaranteed" by the U.N., until all but the most dedicated reader reaches Article 29(3) - and I'm betting very few have ever gotten that far before swooning - which reads thus:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The United Nations taketh away, even as it giveth.

Amazing.

[bigboab]

There used to be a lot of people allowed to enter your house without a search warrant. I may have changed now. I seem to remember the following had that right:-

A policeman in pursuit of a (suspect)criminal. Obvious.
Electricity board.
Gas board.
Customs and Excise.
TV Licence People. (Post Office did this in my day)
Fire Brigade. Obvious.
There was a lot less obvious like;
Chief Medical Officer.
Rat Catcher, etc.
Planning Authorities.

This may have changed, I don't read law books anymore.

Apparently there are about 700 powers who have the right to enter your house without permission.

Here is a question in the House Of Lords 13th March this year,in reply to the above figure being quoted.


My Lords, if there really are 650 people with a right of entry to any householder's house, how is the householder to know which has a right and which does not?

[JPaul]

I believe that, given the context, lynx was referring to covert entry. It would hardly be "Undercover Customs" otherwise.

Oh and boab, I think things may have changed with ECHR becoming more of an issue in the UK. I know that's after your Policing days.

[bigboab]

I have updated that post. There does not appear to be much change.

Check Hansard 13th March this year.

Over 650 powers have the right of entry without warrant.

[JPaul]

That's stunning.

[vidcc]

Perhaps everyone should install security devices that will light up 20 benson and hedges upon detection of the unwanted and unwarranted entrants. ;)

I think that there should be certain justifications for unauthorized entry especially in the absence of the occupier, but it should be limited to imminent health and safety risks such as fire, gas leak, severe infestations where the occupier is not available or other emergency situations.

Things like the original example, it's outrageous to not obtain a warrant.

On agencies such as TV License enforcement aren't there certain criteria that need to be met first? For example only authorized to enter premises that don't have a license and then having to be "let in" and not force entry

There surely is not a blank authority for these groups to enter, there must be rules about justification.

[lynx]

I believe that, given the context, lynx was referring to covert entry. It would hardly be "Undercover Customs" otherwise.
Actually, although the series was called "Undercover Customs", the "Undercover" part was about the initial covert surveillance. The actual entry to premises was done with the full knowledge of those being investigated, at least in most cases.

I fully agree that in many cases the granting of such right of entry is appalling. I can understand the reasoning behind it - prevention of the removal or destruction of evidence for instance - but as far as I am aware there is no requirement for Customs Officers to justify their actions.

In the case of gas and electricity suppliers there was at one time a legal requirement that the suppliers must check the installation of meters etc. I don't know if that's still the case. Given that they had to perform this duty they were given the right to enter premises in order to carry it out. However I think they are limited to right of entry in order to carry out checks and disconnections.

I'm shocked to find out that there are so many though. It is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs, which is presumably what prompted the question in the Lords.

[JPaul]

Isn't it the case that most of these rights of entry are in effect with the owners consent. They can say we have the right of entry but if the owner doesn't open the door then they can't actually force entry. Or indeed enter covertly.

The reality is that the right can then be used to get a warrant, which will then be executed. Only then after having actually tried to enter the premises and been refused. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to get the warrant if the owner hadn't actually committed a criminal offence.

[bigboab]

Isn't it the case that most of these rights of entry are in effect with the owners consent. They can say we have the right of entry but if the owner doesn't open the door then they can't actually force entry. Or indeed enter covertly.

The reality is that the right can then be used to get a warrant, which will then be executed. Only then after having actually tried to enter the premises and been refused. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to get the warrant if the owner hadn't actually committed a criminal offence.

No, that is not the case. In most cases when reasonable right of entry is refused the power involved asks for police assistance to force their original right of entry. They are not required to go to a court or a Justice Of Peace to give them a warrant to carry out a right that they already possess.

[JPaul]

Isn't it the case that most of these rights of entry are in effect with the owners consent. They can say we have the right of entry but if the owner doesn't open the door then they can't actually force entry. Or indeed enter covertly.

The reality is that the right can then be used to get a warrant, which will then be executed. Only then after having actually tried to enter the premises and been refused. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to get the warrant if the owner hadn't actually committed a criminal offence.

No, that is not the case. In most cases when reasonable right of entry is refused the power involved asks for police assistance to force their original right of entry. They are not required to go to a court or a Justice Of Peace to give them a warrant to carry out a right that they already possess.

Cheers for the clarification.

One would think there were ECHR problems with that. The right to privacy and all that. It's difficult to see how reading a meter (or similar) would be proportionate to forcing entry to someone's home.

Secondly, if you don't mind, are these things for the whole of the UK. As you know Scotland often has different rules for entry. PACE Sect 18 being a classic example.

[bigboab]

No, that is not the case. In most cases when reasonable right of entry is refused the power involved asks for police assistance to force their original right of entry. They are not required to go to a court or a Justice Of Peace to give them a warrant to carry out a right that they already possess.

Cheers for the clarification.

One would think there were ECHR problems with that. The right to privacy and all that. It's difficult to see how reading a meter (or similar) would be proportionate to forcing entry to someone's home.

Secondly, if you don't mind, are these things for the whole of the UK. As you know Scotland often has different rules for entry. PACE Sect 18 being a classic example.

In most cases the Warrant is empowered by the Act Of Parliament therefore another warrant is not required. It will tell you in the Act Of Parliament heading which area the law applies to.

Is most cases reason is applied.

As for the Gas board and Electricity Board their equipment inside a dwelling is sealed by them. They are allowed to check these seals occasionally, especially if they think they have been tampered with. i.e. too low a bill etc.:) In those cases they send out a 'meter reader' who also checks the seals.:)

The criminal Law in Scotland is a good example of the difference between us and England.

In Scotland you require two or more witnesses or one witness plus enough other evidence to equal another witness. The exceptions are police or traffic wardens on traffic duty. If they tell you to stop, you stop, or it only requires their sole evidence to convict you.

In England only one witness is required. I don't know if Wales and Northern Ireland are different legally.

[JPaul]

Cheers for the clarification.

One would think there were ECHR problems with that. The right to privacy and all that. It's difficult to see how reading a meter (or similar) would be proportionate to forcing entry to someone's home.

Secondly, if you don't mind, are these things for the whole of the UK. As you know Scotland often has different rules for entry. PACE Sect 18 being a classic example.

In most cases the Warrant is empowered by the Act Of Parliament therefore another warrant is not required. It will tell you in the Act Of Parliament heading which area the law applies to.


Bit confused here.

What Warrant are we talking about. The first time you mention the word.

[bigboab]

In most cases the Warrant is empowered by the Act Of Parliament therefore another warrant is not required. It will tell you in the Act Of Parliament heading which area the law applies to.


Bit confused here.

What Warrant are we talking about. The first time you mention the word.

The Act Of Parliament is the warrant giving right of entry to the various powers concerned with that act. The powers concerned invoke their right of entry as specified in the Act Of Parliament.

[JPaul]

Bit confused here.

What Warrant are we talking about. The first time you mention the word.

The Act Of Parliament is the warrant giving right of entry to the various powers concerned with that act. The powers concerned invoke their right of entry as specified in the Act Of Parliament.

Gotcha, they don't actually apply for a warrant to a judge or anything.