Goode, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Nottingham

Goode, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Nottingham

The only ground of challenge with legal merit was the omission of the applicant officer's name from the warrants, a technical breach of section 15(6)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, given the lack of prejudice, the excessive and unexplained delay in bringing the claim, and the discretionary nature of relief, permission to proceed with judicial review was refused. The warrants were otherwise sufficiently explicit, and there was no evidence of bad faith or unfairness in their issue or execution.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Goode; 1st Defendant: The Crown Court at Nottingham; 2nd Defendant: Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Proceed With Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Permission to proceed with judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Professional Privilege, Seizure of Property, Delay in Judicial Review, Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Legal Professional Privilege Seizure of Property Delay in Judicial Review Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Goode

Claimant

The Crown Court at Nottingham

1st Defendant

Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Proceed With Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants issued against the claimant and his employer were valid and lawfully executed
  2. 2 Whether the warrants failed to comply with statutory requirements under section 15(6) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  3. 3 Whether the warrants unlawfully authorised search and seizure of legally privileged material

Ratio Decidendi

The only ground of challenge with legal merit was the omission of the applicant officer's name from the warrants, a technical breach of section 15(6)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, given the lack of prejudice, the excessive and unexplained delay in bringing the claim, and the discretionary nature of relief, permission to proceed with judicial review was refused. The warrants were otherwise sufficiently explicit, and there was no evidence of bad faith or unfairness in their issue or execution.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed with judicial review refused