Cabot Global Ltd & Ors v Barkingside Magistrates' Court & Ors

Cabot Global Ltd & Ors v Barkingside Magistrates' Court & Ors

It was not practicable to specify in advance the items within computers and mobile phones to which the search related. The warrants were sufficiently clear and precise in the circumstances of a broad and complex investigation. The seizure of electronic devices and cash was lawful under section 8 PACE, and the police were not required to use alternative statutory powers. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

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 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Seizure of Electronic Devices, Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Section 8 PACE, Section 15 PACE, Section 19 PACE, Section 20 PACE, Section 50 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Seizure of Electronic Devices Police and Criminal Evidence Act Section 8 PACE Section 15 PACE +3 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 / 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 not identifying, so far as practicable, the articles to be sought
  2. 2 Whether the warrants unlawfully authorised the seizure of material not 'relevant evidence' under section 8(1)(c) of PACE
  3. 3 Whether the police should have relied on sections 19 or 20 of PACE or section 50 CJPA 2001 instead of section 8

Ratio Decidendi

It was not practicable to specify in advance the items within computers and mobile phones to which the search related. The warrants were sufficiently clear and precise in the circumstances of a broad and complex investigation. The seizure of electronic devices and cash was lawful under section 8 PACE, and the police were not required to use alternative statutory powers. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed