Jordan, R (On the Application Of) v Merseyside Police & Anor

Jordan, R (On the Application Of) v Merseyside Police & Anor

The damage to the public interest from disclosure of the redacted intelligence reports outweighs the damage to the administration of justice from non-disclosure; the PII claim is upheld except for one piece of information to be disclosed as a gist.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Jordan; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; Second Defendant: Sefton Magistrates’ Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Determination of Public Interest Immunity (pii) Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
PII claim upheld except for limited disclosure of gist; substantive hearing to proceed with closed material procedure.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Public Interest Immunity, Closed Material Procedure, Disclosure, Misuse of Drugs Act
Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Search Warrants Public Interest Immunity Closed Material Procedure Disclosure Misuse of Drugs Act

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Jordan

Claimant

Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

First Defendant

Sefton Magistrates’ Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Determination of Public Interest Immunity (pii) Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant was granted on the basis of false or exaggerated information
  2. 2 Whether there were material non-disclosures in the warrant application
  3. 3 Whether the claim for public interest immunity over intelligence reports should be upheld

Ratio Decidendi

The damage to the public interest from disclosure of the redacted intelligence reports outweighs the damage to the administration of justice from non-disclosure; the PII claim is upheld except for one piece of information to be disclosed as a gist.

Court Disposition

PII claim upheld except for limited disclosure of gist; substantive hearing to proceed with closed material procedure.

Orders

  • First Defendant to provide further information about report 14 by way of gist.
  • Substantive hearing to be conducted with open and closed sessions as outlined.