Hoque & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2013] EWHC 725 (Admin) (13 March 2013)

Hoque & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs [2013] EWHC 725 (Admin) (13 March 2013)

The warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because they did not identify, so far as practicable, the articles to be sought and improperly delegated the justice's responsibility to the constable. As a result, the entries and searches were unlawful.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 725 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Rabiul Hoque; Claimant: Mridul Kanti Das; First Defendant: City of London Magistrates' Court; Second Defendant: The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted that the warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) and the searches were unlawful; issue of damages adjourned; claimants awarded one third of their assessed costs; no order for return of copies of seized material.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Cheating the Revenue, Seizure of Evidence, Judicial Oversight, Costs
Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Search Warrants Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Cheating the Revenue Seizure of Evidence Judicial Oversight +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabiul Hoque

Claimant

Mridul Kanti Das

Claimant

City of London Magistrates' Court

First Defendant

The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants complied with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the warrants lawfully authorised the seizure of computers and electronic equipment under section 8(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the searches and seizures were unlawful due to defects in the warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because they did not identify, so far as practicable, the articles to be sought and improperly delegated the justice's responsibility to the constable. As a result, the entries and searches were unlawful.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that the warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) and the searches were unlawful; issue of damages adjourned; claimants awarded one third of their assessed costs; no order for return of copies of seized material.

Orders

  • Declaration that the warrants issued on 15 February 2012 did not comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the searches on 20 February 2012 were unlawful.
  • Issue of damages adjourned to a single judge.