Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief of Police for Northumbria & Anor

Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief of Police for Northumbria & Anor

Section 22 of PACE permits the police to retain property seized under PACE for use as evidence or for forensic investigation in connection with an offence, even after the CPS decides not to prosecute, and even if the prosecution is to be conducted by a private body. The necessity of retention must be assessed in all the circumstances, but is not limited to public prosecutions. The CPS's decision not to prosecute is not determinative of the public interest or necessity for retention.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Scopelight Limited; Claimant/respondent: Anton Benjamin Vickerman; Claimant/respondent: Kelly-Ann Vickerman; Defendant/appellant: Chief of Police for Northumbria; Defendant/appellant: The Federation Against Copyright Theft Ltd (FACT)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Police Powers of Seizure and Retention, Private Prosecution, Interpretation of Section 22 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace), Conversion, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Police Powers of Seizure and Retention Private Prosecution Interpretation of Section 22 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace) Conversion Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scopelight Limited

Claimant/respondent

Anton Benjamin Vickerman

Claimant/respondent

Kelly-Ann Vickerman

Claimant/respondent

Chief of Police for Northumbria

Defendant/appellant

The Federation Against Copyright Theft Ltd (FACT)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 22 of PACE permits police to retain property seized under PACE after a decision not to prosecute by the CPS, for the purposes of a private prosecution by a non-state body
  2. 2 Whether the police's power to retain seized property is limited to public prosecutions or extends to private prosecutions
  3. 3 Whether the decision of the CPS not to prosecute is determinative of the public interest for retention under section 22 PACE

Ratio Decidendi

Section 22 of PACE permits the police to retain property seized under PACE for use as evidence or for forensic investigation in connection with an offence, even after the CPS decides not to prosecute, and even if the prosecution is to be conducted by a private body. The necessity of retention must be assessed in all the circumstances, but is not limited to public prosecutions. The CPS's decision not to prosecute is not determinative of the public interest or necessity for retention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment set aside
  • Matter remitted for further submissions on continuation of interim order