Fitzgerald v Preston Crown Court & Anor [2018] EWHC 804 (Admin) (18 April 2018)

Fitzgerald v Preston Crown Court & Anor [2018] EWHC 804 (Admin) (18 April 2018)

The judge below was entitled to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing an indictable offence (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) had been committed, that the statutory criteria for a warrant under PACE s.9 and Schedule 1 were met, and that the warrant, its execution, the arrest, and continued detention of the claimant were lawful. The use of s.9 and Schedule 1 was appropriate given the likelihood of encountering SPM, and the public interest justified the warrant. No material non-disclosure or procedural error was found.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 804 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Gerard Fitzgerald; 1st Defendant: Preston Crown Court; 2nd Defendant: Chief Constable of Lancashire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Judicial Review, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Special Procedure Material, Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, Arrest and Detention, Disclosure, Public Interest Immunity
Criminal Law Administrative Law Police Powers Search Warrants Judicial Review Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Special Procedure Material Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Fitzgerald

Claimant

Preston Crown Court

1st Defendant

Chief Constable of Lancashire Police

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant issued under PACE s.9 and Schedule 1 was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the execution of the warrant was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the arrest and continued detention of the claimant were lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below was entitled to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing an indictable offence (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) had been committed, that the statutory criteria for a warrant under PACE s.9 and Schedule 1 were met, and that the warrant, its execution, the arrest, and continued detention of the claimant were lawful. The use of s.9 and Schedule 1 was appropriate given the likelihood of encountering SPM, and the public interest justified the warrant. No material non-disclosure or procedural error was found.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All grounds of challenge to the legality of the warrant, its execution, the arrest, and continued detention are dismissed.
  • No relief granted to the claimant.