A & Anor, (On the Application Of) v The Central Criminal Court & Anor [2017] EWHC 70 (Admin) (26 January 2017)

A & Anor, (On the Application Of) v The Central Criminal Court & Anor [2017] EWHC 70 (Admin) (26 January 2017)

Warrants were lawful as they expressly excluded LPP material, sufficiently identified the phones as articles sought, and complied with Schedule 1 and s.15(6)(b) PACE. Entry and seizure were lawful except for procedural breach in respect of D and E, which entitles them to declaratory relief. Non-disclosure of police arrest strategy was not material to the issuance of warrants. Sifting of LPP and excluded material is governed by CJPA ss.50-61.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 70 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: A; Claimant: B; Claimant: C; Claimant: D; Claimant: E; First Defendant: The Central Criminal Court; Second Defendant: The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused except declaratory relief for D and E regarding procedural breach.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Privilege, Excluded Material, Disclosure Obligations, Seizure of Electronic Devices
Criminal Law Police Powers Judicial Review Search Warrants Legal Privilege Excluded Material Disclosure Obligations Seizure of Electronic Devices

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Claimant

C

Claimant

D

Claimant

E

Claimant

The Central Criminal Court

First Defendant

The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether search warrants complied with Schedule 1 of PACE regarding LPP and excluded material
  2. 2 Whether warrants were sufficiently specific under s.15(6)(b) PACE
  3. 3 Whether entry, search, and seizure were lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Warrants were lawful as they expressly excluded LPP material, sufficiently identified the phones as articles sought, and complied with Schedule 1 and s.15(6)(b) PACE. Entry and seizure were lawful except for procedural breach in respect of D and E, which entitles them to declaratory relief. Non-disclosure of police arrest strategy was not material to the issuance of warrants. Sifting of LPP and excluded material is governed by CJPA ss.50-61.

Court Disposition

Relief refused except declaratory relief for D and E regarding procedural breach.

Orders

  • Declaratory relief for D and E for breach of s.16(5)(b) PACE
  • Directions for parties to submit proposals for draft order within 14 days