van der Pijl, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

van der Pijl, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

The judge had jurisdiction to permit the Dutch prosecutor to examine the documents and assist in justifying their retention under section 59(7). There was no statutory or procedural bar to this approach, and the use of independent counsel was not mandatory. The process adopted was practical and within the judge's discretion.

Parties
Claimant: Van der Pijl; First Defendant: Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames; Second Defendant: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Continuation of Interim Relief and Permission
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused; interim relief (injunction) discharged.
Legal Topics
Retention of Unlawfully Seized Material, Search Warrants, Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Role of Independent Counsel, Mutual Legal Assistance With Foreign Authorities
Criminal Law Judicial Review Mutual Legal Assistance Retention of Unlawfully Seized Material Search Warrants Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Role of Independent Counsel +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Van der Pijl

Claimant

Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames

First Defendant

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Continuation of Interim Relief and Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court judge had jurisdiction to permit the Dutch prosecutor to examine unlawfully seized documents for the purpose of retention proceedings under section 59(7) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether the process adopted circumvented the proper procedure for mutual legal assistance and breached privacy rights
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have ruled on the relevance of documents before permitting the prosecutor's involvement

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had jurisdiction to permit the Dutch prosecutor to examine the documents and assist in justifying their retention under section 59(7). There was no statutory or procedural bar to this approach, and the use of independent counsel was not mandatory. The process adopted was practical and within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused; interim relief (injunction) discharged.

Orders

  • Interim injunction preventing the Dutch prosecutor from accessing the documents is discharged.
  • Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.