Ashbolt & Anor v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2020] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (18 June 2020)

Ashbolt & Anor v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2020] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (18 June 2020)

The judge was entitled to find that there were reasonable grounds for believing indictable offences had been committed, based on the evidence of false and backdated documents submitted by the claimants, their roles as professional advisers, and the circumstances of the rebranding of loans as fiduciary receipts. The judge was also entitled to find that other methods of obtaining the material were bound to fail and that service of notice may seriously prejudice the investigation, given the claimants' prior evasiveness and risk of evidence destruction. The statutory criteria for issuing the warrants were satisfied.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Ashbolt; Claimant: Simon Arundell; First Defendant: Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs; Second Defendant: The Crown Court sitting at Leeds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud by False Representation, Cheating the Public Revenue, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace), Search Warrants, Loan Charge, Tax Avoidance Vs Tax Evasion, Proportionality of Search Warrants
Criminal Law Tax Law Judicial Review Search and Seizure Fraud by False Representation Cheating the Public Revenue Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace) Search Warrants +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Ashbolt

Claimant

Simon Arundell

Claimant

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

First Defendant

The Crown Court sitting at Leeds

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was entitled to find that the access conditions in Schedule 1 paragraph 2 of PACE were satisfied, particularly that there were reasonable grounds for believing an indictable offence had been committed.
  2. 2 Whether the judge was entitled to find that other methods of obtaining the material had not been tried because they appeared bound to fail, and that service of notice of an application for a production order may seriously prejudice the investigation.
  3. 3 What relief, if any, should be granted if unlawfulness is found.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that there were reasonable grounds for believing indictable offences had been committed, based on the evidence of false and backdated documents submitted by the claimants, their roles as professional advisers, and the circumstances of the rebranding of loans as fiduciary receipts. The judge was also entitled to find that other methods of obtaining the material were bound to fail and that service of notice may seriously prejudice the investigation, given the claimants' prior evasiveness and risk of evidence destruction. The statutory criteria for issuing the warrants were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • Warrants not quashed