Jordan, R (On the Application Of) v Merseyside Police & Anor [2020] EWHC 2274 (Admin) (21 August 2020)

Jordan, R (On the Application Of) v Merseyside Police & Anor [2020] EWHC 2274 (Admin) (21 August 2020)

The damage to the public interest from disclosure of the redacted intelligence reports clearly outweighs the damage to the administration of justice from non-disclosure; therefore, the PII claim is upheld except for one piece of information to be disclosed as a 'gist.'

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2274 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Jordan; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; Second Defendant: Sefton Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Determination of Public Interest Immunity (pii) Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
PII claim upheld (except for one item to be disclosed); directions given for substantive hearing.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Search Warrants, Public Interest Immunity, Closed Material Procedure, Disclosure in Criminal Investigations
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review of Search Warrants Public Interest Immunity Closed Material Procedure Disclosure in Criminal Investigations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Jordan

Claimant

Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

First Defendant

Sefton Magistrates' Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Determination of Public Interest Immunity (pii) Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant was granted on the basis of false or exaggerated information
  2. 2 Whether there were material non-disclosures in the warrant application
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant's claim for public interest immunity over certain intelligence reports should be upheld

Ratio Decidendi

The damage to the public interest from disclosure of the redacted intelligence reports clearly outweighs the damage to the administration of justice from non-disclosure; therefore, the PII claim is upheld except for one piece of information to be disclosed as a 'gist.'

Court Disposition

PII claim upheld (except for one item to be disclosed); directions given for substantive hearing.

Orders

  • First Defendant to provide further information about the date of report 14 as a 'gist'.
  • Substantive hearing to proceed remotely on 2 September 2020 before the same judge.