A & Anor, (On the Application Of) v The Central Criminal Court & Anor

A & Anor, (On the Application Of) v The Central Criminal Court & Anor

Warrants specifying phones as articles sought, with express exclusion of legally privileged material, complied with statutory requirements under PACE and CJPA; entry and seizure were lawful except for procedural breach in respect of D and E, which did not warrant quashing the warrants.

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 breach of s.16(5)(b) PACE.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Privilege, Police Powers, Seizure of Evidence, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Search Warrants Legal Privilege Police Powers Seizure of Evidence Disclosure Obligations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 statutory requirements under PACE and CJPA
  2. 2 Whether warrants were too broad and failed to exclude legally privileged or excluded material
  3. 3 Whether police failed in their duty of disclosure to the issuing judge

Ratio Decidendi

Warrants specifying phones as articles sought, with express exclusion of legally privileged material, complied with statutory requirements under PACE and CJPA; entry and seizure were lawful except for procedural breach in respect of D and E, which did not warrant quashing the warrants.

Court Disposition

Relief refused except declaratory relief for D and E regarding breach of s.16(5)(b) PACE.

Orders

  • Declaratory relief for D and E for breach of s.16(5)(b) PACE in execution of warrants.
  • Directions for parties to submit proposals for draft order regarding sifting and return of materials within 14 days.