van der Pijl, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [2013] EWHC 3040 (Admin) (01 August 2013)

van der Pijl, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [2013] EWHC 3040 (Admin) (01 August 2013)

The judge had jurisdiction to permit the Dutch prosecutor to examine the documents and assist in justifying their retention. There is no statutory or procedural bar to this approach, and it is a practical and lawful method for determining relevance and substantial value under section 59(7). The use of independent counsel is not mandatory, and the judge's case management decision was not irrational.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3040 (Admin)
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 discharged.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Retention of Seized Property, Mutual Legal Assistance, Judicial Review Procedure, Legal Professional Privilege
Criminal Law Judicial Review International Cooperation Search Warrants Retention of Seized Property Mutual Legal Assistance Judicial Review Procedure Legal Professional Privilege

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 justifying their retention under section 59(7) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether the process adopted circumvented proper procedures and breached privacy rights
  3. 3 Whether independent counsel should have been used instead of the Dutch prosecutor

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had jurisdiction to permit the Dutch prosecutor to examine the documents and assist in justifying their retention. There is no statutory or procedural bar to this approach, and it is a practical and lawful method for determining relevance and substantial value under section 59(7). The use of independent counsel is not mandatory, and the judge's case management decision was not irrational.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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