Windsor v Bristol Crown Court & Anor

Windsor v Bristol Crown Court & Anor

The application to vary the final order of 5 April 2011 is rejected because the order was final, there was no material change of circumstances, and HMRC had full opportunity to raise its points earlier. The final orders in the new claims should follow the original order, allowing HMRC to apply under section 59, as it is not plain that such application would be futile. The court declines to order destruction or prohibit use of copies already made, as it would not be proportionate and the public interest in crime detection outweighs the claimants' arguments.

Parties
Claimant: Alexander Windsor; Claimant: Superbrew (Europe) Limited; Claimant: Kulwant Singh Hare; Claimant: Sarbjit Gill; Claimant: Suraj Brar; Claimant: Michael Welham; Claimant: Brijesh Patel; Claimant: Gareth Turner; Claimant: Barry Chambers; Claimant: Sanjay Panesar T/A Anami Law; Claimant: Avtar Singh Hare; Claimant: Loredan Illies; First Defendant: Bristol Crown Court; Second Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Substantive Relief and Applications to Vary Orders
Outcome
Claims allowed; search warrants quashed; application to vary final order refused; final orders to follow terms of 5 April 2011; HMRC permitted to apply under section 59; no order for destruction of copies or prohibition on use of information.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Seizure of Property, Return of Seized Material, Variation of Court Orders, Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
Criminal Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Search Warrants Seizure of Property Return of Seized Material Variation of Court Orders Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Windsor

Claimant

Superbrew (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Kulwant Singh Hare

Claimant

Sarbjit Gill

Claimant

Suraj Brar

Claimant

Michael Welham

Claimant

Brijesh Patel

Claimant

Gareth Turner

Claimant

Barry Chambers

Claimant

Sanjay Panesar T/A Anami Law

Claimant

Avtar Singh Hare

Claimant

Loredan Illies

Claimant

Bristol Crown Court

First Defendant

Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Substantive Relief and Applications to Vary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC can vary the final order of 5 April 2011 to use seized material for a section 59 application
  2. 2 Whether the final order in the new claims should differ from the original order
  3. 3 Whether section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 applies where the original warrant was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the final order of 5 April 2011 is rejected because the order was final, there was no material change of circumstances, and HMRC had full opportunity to raise its points earlier. The final orders in the new claims should follow the original order, allowing HMRC to apply under section 59, as it is not plain that such application would be futile. The court declines to order destruction or prohibit use of copies already made, as it would not be proportionate and the public interest in crime detection outweighs the claimants' arguments.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed; search warrants quashed; application to vary final order refused; final orders to follow terms of 5 April 2011; HMRC permitted to apply under section 59; no order for destruction of copies or prohibition on use of information.

Orders

  • Search warrants quashed.
  • All original seized material to be returned to claimants, subject to suspension pending section 59 application.