Windsor v Bristol Crown Court & Anor [2011] EWHC 1899 (Admin) (27 July 2011)

Windsor v Bristol Crown Court & Anor [2011] EWHC 1899 (Admin) (27 July 2011)

The application to vary the final order is rejected because the order was final, there was no material change of circumstances, and HMRC had full opportunity to raise its arguments previously. The final orders in the new claims should mirror the original orders, allowing HMRC to apply under section 59 but not to use or retain unlawfully seized material beyond what is already permitted. Destruction of copies is not ordered as it would not be proportionate or justified on the facts.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1899 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Windsor; Claimant: Superbrew (Europe) Limited; Claimant: Kulwant Singh Hare; Claimant: Sarbjit Gill; Claimant: Suraj Brar; Claimant: Michael Welham; Claimant: Brijesh Patel; Claimant: Gareth Turner; Claimant: Barry Chambers; Claimant: Sanjay Panesar T/A Anami Law; Claimant: Avtar Singh Hare; Claimant: Loredan Illies; First Defendant: Bristol Crown Court; Second Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Substantive Relief and Applications to Vary Orders
Outcome
Claims allowed; search warrants quashed; application to vary final order refused; final orders to follow original terms.
Legal Topics
Quashing of Search Warrants, Return of Seized Property, Variation of Court Orders, Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Retention and Use of Unlawfully Seized Material, Finality in Litigation
Criminal Law Judicial Review Search and Seizure Public Law Quashing of Search Warrants Return of Seized Property Variation of Court Orders Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Windsor

Claimant

Superbrew (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Kulwant Singh Hare

Claimant

Sarbjit Gill

Claimant

Suraj Brar

Claimant

Michael Welham

Claimant

Brijesh Patel

Claimant

Gareth Turner

Claimant

Barry Chambers

Claimant

Sanjay Panesar T/A Anami Law

Claimant

Avtar Singh Hare

Claimant

Loredan Illies

Claimant

Bristol Crown Court

First Defendant

Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Substantive Relief and Applications to Vary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC can vary the final order of 5 April 2011 to use seized material for a section 59 application
  2. 2 Whether the final orders in the new claims should differ from the original claims
  3. 3 Whether HMRC should be permitted to retain and use copies of unlawfully seized material

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the final order is rejected because the order was final, there was no material change of circumstances, and HMRC had full opportunity to raise its arguments previously. The final orders in the new claims should mirror the original orders, allowing HMRC to apply under section 59 but not to use or retain unlawfully seized material beyond what is already permitted. Destruction of copies is not ordered as it would not be proportionate or justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed; search warrants quashed; application to vary final order refused; final orders to follow original terms.

Orders

  • All search warrants quashed.
  • HMRC to return all original seized material to Claimants, subject to possible suspension pending section 59 application.