Faisaltex Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Preston & Ors

Faisaltex Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Preston & Ors

The Hill Dickinson warrant was unlawfully issued as the judge lacked a rational basis to be satisfied that service of a notice to produce would seriously prejudice the investigation, failing to meet Schedule 1 paragraph 14(d) of PACE. Other warrants and their execution were not invalid, and judicial review was inappropriate for resolving excessive seizure claims due to delay and factual complexity.

Parties
Claimant: Faisaltex Limited; Claimant: Faisaltex Manufacturing Limited; Claimant: Faisal Imports Limited; Claimant: Anil Hindocha t/a Hindocha and Co; Claimant: Faisal Patel; Claimant: Munaf Patel; Claimant: Arif Patel; 1st Defendant: Crown Court sitting at Preston; 2nd Defendant: Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary; Interested Party: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Permission and Substantive Review
Outcome
Partial grant of permission; substantive relief for Hill Dickinson warrant only; all other claims refused.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Privilege, Excessive Seizure, Promptness in Judicial Review, Police Powers, Execution of Warrants
Criminal Law Judicial Review Search and Seizure Search Warrants Legal Privilege Excessive Seizure Promptness in Judicial Review Police Powers +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faisaltex Limited

Claimant

Faisaltex Manufacturing Limited

Claimant

Faisal Imports Limited

Claimant

Anil Hindocha t/a Hindocha and Co

Claimant

Faisal Patel

Claimant

Munaf Patel

Claimant

Arif Patel

Claimant

Crown Court sitting at Preston

1st Defendant

Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary

2nd Defendant

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Permission and Substantive Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants issued under Section 8 and Schedule 1 of PACE were lawful
  2. 2 Whether the execution of the warrants involved excessive seizure or oppression
  3. 3 Whether judicial review claims were filed promptly as required by CPR 54.5(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The Hill Dickinson warrant was unlawfully issued as the judge lacked a rational basis to be satisfied that service of a notice to produce would seriously prejudice the investigation, failing to meet Schedule 1 paragraph 14(d) of PACE. Other warrants and their execution were not invalid, and judicial review was inappropriate for resolving excessive seizure claims due to delay and factual complexity.

Court Disposition

Partial grant of permission; substantive relief for Hill Dickinson warrant only; all other claims refused.

Orders

  • Permission to seek judicial review of Hill Dickinson warrant granted and warrant quashed.
  • Declaration that entry, search, and seizure at Hill Dickinson premises were unlawful.