Faisaltex Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Preston & Ors [2008] EWHC 2832 (Admin) (21 November 2008)
The search warrant issued in respect of Hill Dickinson LLP was unlawful because there was no rational basis for the judge to be satisfied that service of a notice of application for a production order might seriously prejudice the investigation, as required by Schedule 1 paragraph 14(d) of PACE. The Hindocha and Co. warrants and the section 8 warrants were lawfully issued, sufficiently precise, and based on reasonable grounds. The claimants failed to act promptly in seeking judicial review, but this did not bar relief in respect of the Hill Dickinson warrant due to the seriousness of the rights involved.
- Citation
- [2008] EWHC 2832 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Faisaltex Limited; Claimant: Faisaltex Manufacturing Limited; Claimant: Faisal Imports Limited; Claimant: Anil Hindocha t/a Hindocha and Co; Claimant: Faisal Patel; Claimant: Munaf Patel; Claimant: Arif Patel; 1st Defendant: Crown Court sitting at Preston; 2nd Defendant: Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary; Interested Party: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 November 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Partial grant of judicial review; other claims refused
- Legal Topics
- Search Warrants, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Legal Professional Privilege, Promptness in Judicial Review, Seizure of Evidence, Special Procedure Material
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Faisaltex Limited
Claimant
Faisaltex Manufacturing Limited
Claimant
Faisal Imports Limited
Claimant
Anil Hindocha t/a Hindocha and Co
Claimant
Faisal Patel
Claimant
Munaf Patel
Claimant
Arif Patel
Claimant
Crown Court sitting at Preston
1st Defendant
Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary
2nd Defendant
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the search warrants issued under s.8 and s.9/Schedule 1 of PACE were lawfully issued
- 2 Whether the warrants were too widely drawn or imprecise
- 3 Whether the claimants acted promptly in seeking judicial review
Ratio Decidendi
The search warrant issued in respect of Hill Dickinson LLP was unlawful because there was no rational basis for the judge to be satisfied that service of a notice of application for a production order might seriously prejudice the investigation, as required by Schedule 1 paragraph 14(d) of PACE. The Hindocha and Co. warrants and the section 8 warrants were lawfully issued, sufficiently precise, and based on reasonable grounds. The claimants failed to act promptly in seeking judicial review, but this did not bar relief in respect of the Hill Dickinson warrant due to the seriousness of the rights involved.
Court Disposition
Partial grant of judicial review; other claims refused
Orders
- Permission to seek judicial review and substantive relief granted in respect of the Hill Dickinson warrant; warrant quashed; declaration that entry, search, and seizure at Hill Dickinson were unlawful; order for return of all property seized from Hill Dickinson and any copies thereof
- Permission to seek judicial review in respect of Hindocha and Co. warrants and section 8 warrants refused due to lack of promptness and insufficient merits
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment