Bates & Anor v Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police & Anor [2009] EWHC 942 (Admin) (08 May 2009)

Bates & Anor v Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police & Anor [2009] EWHC 942 (Admin) (08 May 2009)

The warrant was unlawful because neither the officers nor the justice could have been satisfied that all computers at the claimants' premises would not contain legally privileged or special procedure material, given the first claimant's history as an expert witness. The statutory requirements for issuing the warrant were not met, and the search and seizure were therefore unlawful.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 942 (Admin)
Parties
First Claimant: Terence James Bates; Second Claimant: Joan Bates; First Defendant: Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police; Second Defendant: Bristol Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; search warrant quashed; declaration granted
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Professional Privilege, Seizure of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Judicial Review Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Legal Professional Privilege Seizure of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Judicial Review Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence James Bates

First Claimant

Joan Bates

Second Claimant

Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police

First Defendant

Bristol Magistrates' Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant was lawfully issued under section 8 of PACE
  2. 2 Whether there were reasonable grounds for believing seized material did not include legally privileged or special procedure material
  3. 3 Whether the search and seizure exceeded lawful authority

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant was unlawful because neither the officers nor the justice could have been satisfied that all computers at the claimants' premises would not contain legally privileged or special procedure material, given the first claimant's history as an expert witness. The statutory requirements for issuing the warrant were not met, and the search and seizure were therefore unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; search warrant quashed; declaration granted

Orders

  • The search warrant is quashed.
  • Declaration that the entry, search, and seizures were unlawful.