Drugs seized by UK Border Force

[Mauro Scarlatti]

My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website. A few days after the parcel was supposed to arrive she received a letter from the Border Force with title "Notice of Seizure under the Customs and Excise Act 1979", stating

"Dear Madam,

Pursuant to Section 139(6) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, and paragraph 1 of the 3rd Schedule thereto, the Commissioners of the Customs and Excise hereby give you notice that certain goods namely

120 DHEA tablets (which are a CLASS C controlled drug)

imported at Stansted Airport on [...] from USA have been seized as liable to forfeit under Section 49(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 on the grounds that they have been imported contrary to the prohibition imposed under Section 3 of The Misuse of Drugs Act 1979 (MDA)."

The letter describes the options available, i.e. Condemnation Proceedings, if my wife challenges the decision, or Restoration, where she can ask for the goods to be restored to her even if she accepts that they were properly seized.

I have the following questions:

1. Is it possible for my wife to be prosecuted for this? My understanding is that prasterone is considered an "anabolic steroid" and it is not an offence to have it for personal use (see https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing). However, could she be prosecuted for trying to order it?

2. Would it be advisable for my wife to seek Restoration on the basis that she was advised to take this medication by a UK doctor, or would she further risk incriminating herself?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Mauro

[Davey]

I do not know any specifics, but a quick search found this page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-list--2/list-of-most-commonly-encountered-drugs-currently-controlled-under-the-misuse-of-drugs-legislation

Prasterone is listed as Class C, Sch. 4, Pt.II.

This leads to:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3998/pdfs/uksi_20013998_en.pdf

"Schedule 4 Controlled drugs subject to the requirements of regulations
22, 23, 26 and
Part I 27.
Part II Controlled drugs excepted from the prohibition on possession
when in the
form of a medicinal product; excluded from the application of offences
arising from the prohibition on importation and exportation when
imported or exported in the form of a medicinal product by any person
for administration to himself; and subject to the requirements of
regulations 22, 23, 26 and 27."

I haven't looked up Regulations 22, 23, 26 & 27.

However, I would be very suspicious of any drug purchased from any
website, especially an overseas one, unless it had water-tight
credentials.

--
Davey.

[Judith]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:04:48 -0800 (PST), Mauro Scarlatti
<msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.

Surely the doctor could have prescribed them for her - even if they are
Class C - even as a private prescription if it is something the NHS will no
allow.

[Norman Wells]

> Mauro Scarlatti <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been
>> advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.

If she'd been properly advised by a UK doctor, it would presumably have been
properly prescribed too, in which case it would appear she could have obtained it on
prescription.

Why didn't she?

[The Todal]

Is it possible the doctor "advised her to take" the drug and told her
that she would have to obtain it abroad since it can't be prescribed in
the UK? I can't find it in the British National Formulary but perhaps
it goes by other names. However one has to suspect that it isn't legal
to prescribe it in the UK.

If so, is the doctor a bit of a maverick, who should perhaps be reported
to the GMC?

I think you can be sure that if you tell HMRC "but a doctor friend of
mine recommended it" this wouldn't make them release the impounded
medicine and send it to you.

I don't think your wife can be prosecuted for any offence.

[Chris R]

"The Todal" wrote in message news:e9dq6t...@mid.individual.net...

>
> On 20/11/2016 13:16, Judith wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:04:48 -0800 (PST), Mauro Scarlatti
> > <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been
> >> advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.
> >

>

> I don't think your wife can be prosecuted for any offence.

I'm pretty sure being concerned in the importation of a controlled drug and
importation of medicine without product licence are both offences.
--
Chris R

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:27:40 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:

>On 20/11/2016 13:16, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:04:48 -0800 (PST), Mauro Scarlatti
>> <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.
>>
>> Surely the doctor could have prescribed them for her - even if they are
>> Class C - even as a private prescription if it is something the NHS will no
>> allow.
>>
>
>Is it possible the doctor "advised her to take" the drug and told her
>that she would have to obtain it abroad since it can't be prescribed in
>the UK? I can't find it in the British National Formulary but perhaps
>it goes by other names. However one has to suspect that it isn't legal
>to prescribe it in the UK.

No form of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is licensed as a medicine in
the UK for any treatment. A doctor can prescribe it as an unlicensed/
off label medicine but in doing so carries responsibility for the
safety of the prescribed agent (which might explain why it has been
recommended but not prescribed). Even with a prescription finding a
pharmacy either stocking it or prepared to get some may be difficult.
The reason it is unlicensed is because there is no evidence it is
either effective or safe for treating anything. There is also very
little good quality information available about its potential side
effects.

[Mauro Scarlatti]

I forgot to ask: do you think it would be a good idea for us to contact a solicitor at this stage?

[Mauro Scarlatti]

Thanks for your replies. The doctor in question is a well known fertility specialist, and this drug is often taken by women who are undergoing IVF (there are many discussions on fertility forums about people taking it in this country). Normally people order it online, from .UK websites, which leads some to the mistaken belief that this stuff is a legal supplement in the UK, as it is in some other countries.

I understand it was a stupid thing to do, but how likely do you think it is that she will be prosecuted? The Border Force letter says "The seizure of these goods is without prejudice to any further action that the Border Force may take against you in connection with the seizure. You should also be aware that if any further detections are made which result in goods being seized from you, this may lead to prosecution under Section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. A person found guilty of an offence under this section is liable to an unlimited fine and/or up to seven years imprisonment".

Thanks,
Mauro

[The Todal]

On 20/11/2016 15:28, Mauro Scarlatti wrote:

> I forgot to ask: do you think it would be a good idea for us to contact a solicitor at this stage?
>

It wouldn't do any harm but might run up a large bill for legal fees.

If she is keen to get the drugs released to her, she'll need a lawyer
who is expert in this field and it might be expensive.

Chris R. might be right to suggest that a prosecution can't be ruled
out, but I should think it would be more likely if your wife makes
further attempts to import that drug.

I know of someone who tried to import pornography believing it to be
mainstream and lawful, and it was seized by HMRC but they did not pursue
any prosecution (well, when I last asked).

[Peter Crosland]

If the doctor wanted her to have the drug then he should have prescribed
it.She should just accept that the HMR&C have been so lenient.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Janet]

In article <d75c6cec-81b7-4268...@googlegroups.com>,
msmsca...@gmail.com says...

>
> Thanks for your replies. The doctor in question is a well known fertility specialist, and this drug is
often taken by women who are undergoing IVF

I'm astonished such women would take an unlicensed drug that carries
risk to the foetus. DHEA is contraindicated for pregnant women.

https://www.drugs.com/cdi/prasterone.html

Janet.

[Peter Crosland]

I was once told by C&E, as they once were, that the addressee was deemed
to be the importer and therefore could be prosecuted. This was in
connection with a piece of radio equipment. Is this no longer the case
if indeed it ever was? BTW I was able to convince them that the
equipment was actually legal to import.

[Roger Hayter]

Presumably because no-one has a license to sell it for medicinal use in
this country. This is something that costs a lot of money to obtain
and demands scientific evidence of efficacy. The doctor could have
legally imported it for a given patient's use despite its lack of a
sales licence here had he or she chosen to.



--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

The product licence is not a legal obligation if it is for individual
use and not for resale.


--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 20/11/2016 13:16, Judith wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:04:48 -0800 (PST), Mauro Scarlatti
> > <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been
> >advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.
> >
> > Surely the doctor could have prescribed them for her - even if they are
> > Class C - even as a private prescription if it is something the NHS will no
> > allow.
> >
>
> Is it possible the doctor "advised her to take" the drug and told her
> that she would have to obtain it abroad since it can't be prescribed in
> the UK? I can't find it in the British National Formulary but perhaps
> it goes by other names. However one has to suspect that it isn't legal
> to prescribe it in the UK.
>
> If so, is the doctor a bit of a maverick, who should perhaps be reported
> to the GMC?

Doctors can prescribe any substance regardless of whether it is licensed
as a medicine in this country. (I'll leave the EU out of it for obvious
reasons.) They would, if challenged, have to satisfy the GMC that this
was a reasonable medical decision.

>
> I think you can be sure that if you tell HMRC "but a doctor friend of
> mine recommended it" this wouldn't make them release the impounded
> medicine and send it to you.
>
> I don't think your wife can be prosecuted for any offence.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

You may be right about this drug being dangerous but it does not have to
be harmful to be unlicensed. It will be unlicensed merely because
no-one has gone to the trouble and expense of applying for a product
licence, whether or not it is beneficial. Some undeniably useful drugs
are unlicensed in the EU simply because no-one has sought a licence.

--

Roger Hayter

[Handsome Jack]

Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> posted

>
>If the doctor wanted her to have the drug then he should have
>prescribed it.She should just accept that the HMR&C have been so
>lenient.

Lenient? It hasn't yet been established that she has done anything
illegal.

--
Jack

[Handsome Jack]

Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> posted

It is certainly *not* an offence to import any medicine for personal
use, unless it is of a type where mere possession is illegal.

Importing a controlled drug an offence - well that depends on what
class. Diamorphine, yes. Benzodiazepines? No, they are perfectly legal
to possess in the UK.


--
Jack

[Peter Crosland]

Importing, or attempting to import a controlled drug without
authorisation IS an offence.

[Phi]

"The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:e9dq6t...@mid.individual.net...

It's available over the counter in the USA.

Legal status a.. AU: S4 (Prescription only)
b.. CA: Schedule IV
c.. US: OTC

[Mauro Scarlatti]

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:03:27 PM UTC, The Todal wrote:
> It wouldn't do any harm but might run up a large bill for legal fees.
>
> If she is keen to get the drugs released to her, she'll need a lawyer
> who is expert in this field and it might be expensive.
>
> Chris R. might be right to suggest that a prosecution can't be ruled
> out, but I should think it would be more likely if your wife makes
> further attempts to import that drug.

Thanks. My wife is not going to make any attempts to get the drugs released to her or to import it again. At this point our only concern is avoiding a prosecution.

[Brian Reay]

On 20/11/2016 14:27, The Todal wrote:

> On 20/11/2016 13:16, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 04:04:48 -0800 (PST), Mauro Scarlatti
>> <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been
>>> advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.
>>
>> Surely the doctor could have prescribed them for her - even if they are
>> Class C - even as a private prescription if it is something the NHS
>> will no
>> allow.
>>
>
> Is it possible the doctor "advised her to take" the drug and told her
> that she would have to obtain it abroad since it can't be prescribed in
> the UK? I can't find it in the British National Formulary but perhaps
> it goes by other names. However one has to suspect that it isn't legal
> to prescribe it in the UK.
>
> If so, is the doctor a bit of a maverick, who should perhaps be reported
> to the GMC?

That is a bit 'harsh'. Many drugs are used in other countries which are
not available in the UK simply because they haven't been approved here
by NICE. That doesn't mean they are not perfectly safe and effective.
Likewise, doctors frequently use drugs for 'off label' benefits,
perfectly legally, when evidence has come to light that patients using
it for the 'on label' reasons have benefitted in other areas. For
example, some anti-epilitic drugs are used to treat neuropathic pain in
patients who have no history of epilesy.
Likewise, an anti-depression drug is used as a cure for bed-wetting in
adults. (I read some of my daughter's medical books.)

[Brian Reay]

My concern would be more that the drugs were genuinely what they were
supposed to be. There have even been cases of 'rogue' drugs getting into
the UK system.

[Brian Reay]

On 20/11/2016 15:28, Mauro Scarlatti wrote:

> I forgot to ask: do you think it would be a good idea for us to contact a solicitor at this stage?
>

I'd wait. Why incur expense when it may not be required.

Perhaps speak to the Doctor to ask if he/she will provide a letter
confirming his/her advice, just in case.

Chances are they will charge for the letter, they usually do, but it
normally only about £10. (I have one detailing my medicines when
travelling overseas.)

[Brian Reay]

Many, if not all, drugs have side effects. Doctors sometimes need to
apply judgement to decide if the benefits justify the potential side
effects.

If you read the handbook doctors use when prescribing and take the side
effects at face value, chances are you would never take any drug.
(I scan the one my daughter has from time to time, she is a medical
student. That, and some of her medical text books, are quite scary ;-) )

[The Todal]

I always keep a recent copy of the British National Formulary on my
shelves and I always look up the contraindications and side effects of
any medication that I or my family are prescribed.

The same information is often included in information sheets that come
with the medication.

To me, it seems highly irresponsible and unethical for a doctor to
recommend a powerful drug to a patient and to say that since it cannot
be prescribed in the UK it should be sought on the internet. It will
probably come without any information leaflet and might be out of date
or contaminated or could be from a dodgy manufacturer and a different
drug altogether.

If the doctor is a well known fertility specialist, maybe it's time he
was questioned by investigative journalists.

[Nightjar]

A first offence of possession of a Class B drug is normally dealt with
by a simple caution. I would be surprised if the action for a first
offence involving a Class C drug were greater.


--
--

Colin Bignell

[Syd Rumpo]

> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
> Mauro
>

A similar thing happened to me about ten years ago. My mother - who was
dying - believed that one particular pain killer worked for her, but it
had been withdrawn. I can't remember what it was called, but IIRC it
included Paracetamol and an opiate.

I bought some on line involving a Panama based company and received them
from Pakistan. The third lot were confiscated and I was given the
option to contest that, but I didn't. Nothing happened, and she had
died by then anyway.

Cheers
--
Syd

[Brian Reay]

To be fair, that isn't what the OP posted. The doctor seems to have
advised her to 'take it' and (presumably) on finding it wasn't available
in the UK (possibly from the same Dr), ordered it from the US. I
understand it isn't unheard of for UK doctors to say "there is a
(better) drug but it isn't available here".

Understandably, the a patient, keen to recover, sought to obtain the
drug- probably unaware of the legal issues etc- and in the scheme of
things, who can blame them or even think legal action is appropriate.

[@bwllfa.co.uk Nogood Boyo]

"Mauro Scarlatti" wrote in message
news:d75c6cec-81b7-4268...@googlegroups.com...

>I understand it was a stupid thing to do, but how likely do you think it is
>that she will be >prosecuted? The Border Force letter says "The seizure of
>these goods is without prejudice to >any further action that the Border
>Force may take against you in connection with the seizure. >You should also
>be aware that if any further detections are made which result in goods
> >being seized from you, this may lead to prosecution under Section 170 of
>the Customs and >Excise Management Act 1979. A person found guilty of an
>offence under this section is >liable to an unlimited fine and/or up to
>seven years imprisonment".

Not if she accepts the decision, no. They've settled for seizure of the
goods without prosecution. If they'd been thinking of prosecuting, they
wouldn't have issued the letter that you quoted in your original post. If
she challenges the seizure, they have to initiate court proceedings.

Although the letter refers to restoration, they won't restore prohibited
goods (as opposed to goods on which duty was evaded).

--
Nogood Boyo

[Fredxxx]

Would this be the same if you imported a drug from within the EU?

[@bwllfa.co.uk Nogood Boyo]

"Handsome Jack" wrote in message news:lCdy3gFy...@invalid.com...

Read the letter that he posted. HMRC have satisfied themselves that the
import contravened a prohibition and that an offence has been committed
under s170 of CEMA 79.

HMRC Notice 12A ("what you can do if things are seized by HM Revenue and
Customs") explains the legal position:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-12a-what-you-can-do-if-things-are-seized-by-hm-revenue-and-customs/excise-notice-12a-what-you-can-do-if-things-are-seized-by-hm-revenue-and-customs

or

http://tinyurl.com/hzoswv7 if the long link doesn't work.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Handsome Jack]

Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> posted

>
>
>"Handsome Jack" wrote in message news:lCdy3gFy...@invalid.com...
>
>>Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> posted
>>>
>>>If the doctor wanted her to have the drug then he should have
>>>prescribed it.She should just accept that the HMR&C have been so
>>>lenient.
>>
>>Lenient? It hasn't yet been established that she has done anything illegal.
>
>Read the letter that he posted. HMRC have satisfied themselves that the
>import contravened a prohibition

Oh well, if HMRC is satisfied then that's the end of the matter. They
couldn't possibly be mistaken about anything. Notwithstanding the large
number of First-Tier and Upper Tax Tribunal decisions, and the
occasional High Court and Court of Appeal decisions, that find against
them every year. Not to mention the Supreme Court's finding against them
in the recent McKenna case.

There isn't even any need for anybody to explain just what this
prohibition was. Don't know why we need a newsgroup at all. If HMRC says
it's prohibited, then it is. End of discussion.

>and that an offence has been committed under s170 of CEMA 79.
>
>HMRC Notice 12A ("what you can do if things are seized by HM Revenue
>and Customs") explains the legal position:
>
>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-12a-what-you-can-do-if
>-things-are-seized-by-hm-revenue-and-customs/excise-notice-12a-what-you-
>can-do-if-things-are-seized-by-hm-revenue-and-customs
>
>or
>
>http://tinyurl.com/hzoswv7 if the long link doesn't work.
>

--

Jack

[Janet]

In article <1oudnQYN6JUSXK_F...@giganews.com>,
c...@bignell.me.uk says...

A caution for a drug offence on her record, might have all sorts of
unwelcome side effects.

Janet.

[Davey]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:52:23 -0000
Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

> > A first offence of possession of a Class B drug is normally dealt
> > with by a simple caution. I would be surprised if the action for a
> > first offence involving a Class C drug were greater.
>
> A caution for a drug offence on her record, might have all sorts
> of unwelcome side effects.
>
> Janet.

It might affect visa application for travel to the US, indeed.

--
Davey.

[Peter Crosland]

The origin is of no relevance.

[Nick]

On 21/11/2016 22:58, Peter Crosland wrote:

>> Would this be the same if you imported a drug from within the EU?
>
> The origin is of no relevance.

The origin determines if it is an import or not and hence clearly is
relevant, in this context.

[Peter Crosland]

b
Not in the case of illegal substances. You may be able to buy cannabis,
for example legally in Amsterdam, for example but importing it into the
UK is still illegal. In any case the free movement of goods between EU
countries does not mean they are not imports just that there are no duties.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-11-20, Roger Hayter wrote:

> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>
>> > Mauro Scarlatti <msmsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> My wife recently ordered some DHEA (prasterone), which she had been
>> >> advised to take by a UK doctor, from a US website.
>>

>> If she'd been properly advised by a UK doctor, it would presumably have
>> been properly prescribed too, in which case it would appear she could have
>> obtained it on prescription.
>>
>> Why didn't she?
>
> Presumably because no-one has a license to sell it for medicinal use in
> this country. This is something that costs a lot of money to obtain
> and demands scientific evidence of efficacy. The doctor could have
> legally imported it for a given patient's use despite its lack of a
> sales licence here had he or she chosen to.

And some things are cheaper. For example, you can buy naproxen off
the shelf in some countries in larger quantities & for a much lower
unit price than you get here with the prescription charge. (The
dosage is slightly different.)

[@bwllfa.co.uk Nogood Boyo]

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
news:ta6dnUZz4Oo1aq7F...@brightview.co.uk...

>the free movement of goods between EU countries does not mean they are not
>imports just that there are no duties.

Strictly speaking, I think you'll find they are not imports, now that
there's a single market. HMRC use the terms "dispatches" and "arrivals" for
movements of goods between member states, to distinguish them from imports
and exports proper.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/dispatching-your-goods-within-the-eu

--
Nogood Boyo

[@bwllfa.co.uk Nogood Boyo]

"Janet" wrote in message
news:MPG.329d52c23...@news.individual.net...

>A caution for a drug offence on her record, might have all sorts of
>unwelcome side effects.

Accepting seizure of goods doesn't amount to a caution. The offence will be
recorded as an importation offence (s170 CEMA 79) rather than a drugs
offence and I doubt if such a record will be shared with anyone outside HMRC
as a matter of course (I might be wrong). She didn't have possession of the
drugs - they were seized on arrival.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:52:23 -0000
Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

> In article <1oudnQYN6JUSXK_F...@giganews.com>,
> c...@bignell.me.uk says...
> >
> > On 20-Nov-16 5:50 PM, Mauro Scarlatti wrote:

> [...]
> [...]
> [...]

> >
> > A first offence of possession of a Class B drug is normally dealt
> > with by a simple caution. I would be surprised if the action for a
> > first offence involving a Class C drug were greater.
>
> A caution for a drug offence on her record, might have all sorts
> of unwelcome side effects.
>

Where did it say that she accepted a caution, or was asked to?

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-11-20, The Todal wrote:

> On 20/11/2016 15:28, Mauro Scarlatti wrote:
>
>> I forgot to ask: do you think it would be a good idea for us to contact a solicitor at this stage?
>>
>

> It wouldn't do any harm but might run up a large bill for legal fees.
>
> If she is keen to get the drugs released to her, she'll need a lawyer
> who is expert in this field and it might be expensive.
>
> Chris R. might be right to suggest that a prosecution can't be ruled
> out, but I should think it would be more likely if your wife makes
> further attempts to import that drug.
>

> I know of someone who tried to import pornography believing it to be
> mainstream and lawful, and it was seized by HMRC but they did not pursue
> any prosecution (well, when I last asked).

The problem is that the UK has some peculiar bans that most other
Western countries don't have.

[Norman Wells]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:a59ggdx...@news.ducksburg.com...

>> I know of someone who tried to import pornography believing it to be
>> mainstream and lawful, and it was seized by HMRC but they did not pursue
>> any prosecution (well, when I last asked).

The probably had their hands full.

[Janet]

In article <20161123001521.1888858e@Mars>, nos...@ntlworld.com says...

>
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:52:23 -0000
> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1oudnQYN6JUSXK_F...@giganews.com>,
> > c...@bignell.me.uk says...

> > > A first offence of possession of a Class B drug is normally dealt
> > > with by a simple caution. I would be surprised if the action for a
> > > first offence involving a Class C drug were greater.
> >
> > A caution for a drug offence on her record, might have all sorts
> > of unwelcome side effects.
> >
> Where did it say that she accepted a caution, or was asked to?

Nowhere; this is merely conversation on usenet.

Janet