Lee & Ors v Solihull Magistrates Court & Anor [2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin) (05 December 2013)

Lee & Ors v Solihull Magistrates Court & Anor [2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin) (05 December 2013)

The warrants failed to comply with Section 15(6)(b) of PACE 1984 by not identifying, as far as practicable, the articles to be seized, rendering the entry, search, and seizure unlawful. However, the information before the Magistrates was sufficient to satisfy Section 8(1)(c), so the issue of the warrant itself was not unlawful.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3779 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robin Lees; Claimant: Anne Lees; Claimant: Karl Morgan; Claimant: Joanne Morgan; 1st Defendant: Solihull Magistrates' Court; 2nd Defendant: The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration that the entry, search, and seizure were unlawful; order for return of seized property unless HMRC applies to Crown Court for retention within 14 days; warrant not quashed.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Unlawful Search and Seizure, PACE 1984 Compliance, Excise Duty Evasion, Money Laundering, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Unlawful Search and Seizure PACE 1984 Compliance Excise Duty Evasion Money Laundering +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Lees

Claimant

Anne Lees

Claimant

Karl Morgan

Claimant

Joanne Morgan

Claimant

Solihull Magistrates' Court

1st Defendant

The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants issued by Solihull Magistrates' Court complied with Section 15(6)(b) of PACE 1984 regarding specificity of articles to be seized
  2. 2 Whether the information before the Magistrates satisfied the requirements of Section 8(1)(c) of PACE 1984 (reasonable grounds for believing material sought was likely to be relevant evidence)
  3. 3 Whether HMRC breached their duty of full and frank disclosure when applying for the warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants failed to comply with Section 15(6)(b) of PACE 1984 by not identifying, as far as practicable, the articles to be seized, rendering the entry, search, and seizure unlawful. However, the information before the Magistrates was sufficient to satisfy Section 8(1)(c), so the issue of the warrant itself was not unlawful.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the entry, search, and seizure were unlawful; order for return of seized property unless HMRC applies to Crown Court for retention within 14 days; warrant not quashed.

Orders

  • Declaration of unlawfulness of entry, search, and seizure on 6 February 2013
  • Order for HMRC to return all property and copies seized unless application made to Crown Court within 14 days