F & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Blackfriars Crown Court & Anor [2014] EWHC 1541 (Admin) (15 April 2014)

F & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Blackfriars Crown Court & Anor [2014] EWHC 1541 (Admin) (15 April 2014)

The warrant was unlawful because it was drawn too widely, permitted seizure of material not lawfully subject to seizure (including computer hard-drives and storage devices not limited to relevant evidence), and failed to exclude legally privileged and excluded material as required by law. The failure to comply with statutory requirements under PACE rendered the entry, search, and seizure unlawful, and the warrant could not be saved by severance.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1541 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: F, J & K; First Defendant: The Blackfriars Crown Court; Second Defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing (permission and Substantive Application Heard Together)
Outcome
Warrant quashed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Special Procedure Material, Excluded Material, Legal Professional Privilege, Seizure of Evidence
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Special Procedure Material Excluded Material Legal Professional Privilege Seizure of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F, J & K

Claimants

The Blackfriars Crown Court

First Defendant

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Rolled Up Hearing (permission and Substantive Application Heard Together)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant was unlawfully broad and permitted seizure of material not lawfully subject to seizure
  2. 2 Whether the warrant failed to exclude legally privileged and excluded material as required by law
  3. 3 Whether the warrant sufficiently identified the material to be seized as required by PACE

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant was unlawful because it was drawn too widely, permitted seizure of material not lawfully subject to seizure (including computer hard-drives and storage devices not limited to relevant evidence), and failed to exclude legally privileged and excluded material as required by law. The failure to comply with statutory requirements under PACE rendered the entry, search, and seizure unlawful, and the warrant could not be saved by severance.

Court Disposition

Warrant quashed

Orders

  • The search warrant is quashed.
  • Parties to make written submissions as to the consequences of the order.