Revell-Reade v The Serious Fraud Office & Anor [2013] EWHC 4140 (Admin) (20 December 2013)

Revell-Reade v The Serious Fraud Office & Anor [2013] EWHC 4140 (Admin) (20 December 2013)

The application for search and seizure warrants was sufficiently comprehensive and balanced, and the material before the judge justified the conclusion that the claimant had failed to comply substantively with disclosure orders, warranting the intrusive step of search and seizure. The absence of detailed reasons from the judge did not vitiate the decision, as the issues were clear and the SFO's application was not materially defective.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 4140 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jeffrey Robert Revell-Reade; First Defendant: The Serious Fraud Office; Second Defendant: Southwark Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure Warrants, Disclosure Obligations, Restraint Orders, Confiscation Proceedings, Procedural Fairness in Ex Parte Applications
Criminal Law Judicial Review Proceeds of Crime Search and Seizure Warrants Disclosure Obligations Restraint Orders Confiscation Proceedings Procedural Fairness in Ex Parte Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Robert Revell-Reade

Claimant

The Serious Fraud Office

First Defendant

Southwark Crown Court

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search and seizure warrants granted under section 352 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were lawfully issued
  2. 2 Whether the Serious Fraud Office failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the judge's failure to give reasons vitiated the decision to grant the warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The application for search and seizure warrants was sufficiently comprehensive and balanced, and the material before the judge justified the conclusion that the claimant had failed to comply substantively with disclosure orders, warranting the intrusive step of search and seizure. The absence of detailed reasons from the judge did not vitiate the decision, as the issues were clear and the SFO's application was not materially defective.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • No order quashing the search and seizure warrants