Van Der Pijl v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

Van Der Pijl v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor

The Crown Court judge acted within his discretion and had sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory preconditions for retention under section 59 CJPA 2001. Section 59 CJPA 2001 can lawfully be used to facilitate mutual assistance and transmission under CICA 2003. Retention for continuity purposes is lawful. The applicant's delay was unjustified and would have barred relief if the substantive grounds had not failed.

Parties
Claimant: Cornelius Van Der Pijl; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; 2nd Defendant: Kingston Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Permission and Substantive Relief
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State refused; permission against Kingston Crown Court granted but substantive claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Mutual Legal Assistance, Search and Seizure, Retention and Transmission of Evidence, Judicial Review, Delay and Abuse of Process
Criminal Law International Cooperation Administrative Law Mutual Legal Assistance Search and Seizure Retention and Transmission of Evidence Judicial Review Delay and Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius Van Der Pijl

Claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

1st Defendant

Kingston Crown Court

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Permission and Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court judge properly determined the statutory preconditions for retention of seized material under section 59 CJPA 2001
  2. 2 Whether section 59 CJPA 2001 can be used to facilitate mutual assistance and onward transmission under CICA 2003
  3. 3 Whether retention for continuity purposes is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court judge acted within his discretion and had sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory preconditions for retention under section 59 CJPA 2001. Section 59 CJPA 2001 can lawfully be used to facilitate mutual assistance and transmission under CICA 2003. Retention for continuity purposes is lawful. The applicant's delay was unjustified and would have barred relief if the substantive grounds had not failed.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State refused; permission against Kingston Crown Court granted but substantive claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Any and all orders preventing or restraining the Secretary of State from transmitting the material and property seized to the Dutch authorities are vacated forthwith.