Cabot Global Ltd & Ors v Barkingside Magistrates' Court & Ors [2015] EWHC 1458 (Admin) (20 May 2015)

Cabot Global Ltd & Ors v Barkingside Magistrates' Court & Ors [2015] EWHC 1458 (Admin) (20 May 2015)

It was not practicable in this case to specify the items within computers and mobile phones to which the search related. The warrants identified the articles sought so far as practicable in the circumstances. The seizure of computer equipment, mobile phones, and cash representing the proceeds of criminal activity was lawful under section 8 of PACE. The protections of sections 19, 20 PACE and section 50 CJPA 2001 are not required prerequisites for such warrants.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1458 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Cabot Global Ltd; Claimant: Rizwan Hussain; Claimant: Zeeshan Hussain; Claimant: Imran Hussain; 1st Defendant: Barkingside Magistrates' Court; 2nd Defendant: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Interested Party: The London Borough of Redbridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Police Powers, Seizure of Evidence, Judicial Review, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Precision of Warrants
Criminal Law Administrative Law Search Warrants Police Powers Seizure of Evidence Judicial Review Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Precision of Warrants

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cabot Global Ltd

Claimant

Rizwan Hussain

Claimant

Zeeshan Hussain

Claimant

Imran Hussain

Claimant

Barkingside Magistrates' Court

1st Defendant

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

2nd Defendant

The London Borough of Redbridge

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by insufficiently identifying articles to be sought
  2. 2 Whether the warrants unlawfully authorised seizure of material not 'relevant evidence' under section 8(1)(c) of PACE
  3. 3 Whether seizure of computer equipment, mobile phones, and cash was impermissible without further specificity

Ratio Decidendi

It was not practicable in this case to specify the items within computers and mobile phones to which the search related. The warrants identified the articles sought so far as practicable in the circumstances. The seizure of computer equipment, mobile phones, and cash representing the proceeds of criminal activity was lawful under section 8 of PACE. The protections of sections 19, 20 PACE and section 50 CJPA 2001 are not required prerequisites for such warrants.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is dismissed.