Goode, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Nottingham [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin) (20 June 2013)

Goode, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Nottingham [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin) (20 June 2013)

The only legally meritorious ground was the omission of the applicant officer's name from the warrants, rendering the searches technically unlawful under section 15(6)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but this was a technical breach causing no prejudice and, given the exceptional delay in bringing the claim, the court refused permission to proceed to review or grant discretionary relief.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Goode; 1st Defendant: The Crown Court at Nottingham; 2nd Defendant: Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (represented by East Midlands Police Legal Services)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to proceed to judicial review refused; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Search Warrants, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Legal Professional Privilege, Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Delay in Judicial Review, Technical Defects in Warrants
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search and Seizure Validity of Search Warrants Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Legal Professional Privilege Section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Goode

Claimant

The Crown Court at Nottingham

1st Defendant

Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (represented by East Midlands Police Legal Services)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants issued by Nottingham Crown Court were invalid due to misstatements or technical defects
  2. 2 Whether the warrants unlawfully authorised the search for or seizure of legally privileged material
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the claim should bar relief

Ratio Decidendi

The only legally meritorious ground was the omission of the applicant officer's name from the warrants, rendering the searches technically unlawful under section 15(6)(a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but this was a technical breach causing no prejudice and, given the exceptional delay in bringing the claim, the court refused permission to proceed to review or grant discretionary relief.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed to judicial review refused; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • No order quashing the warrants or declaring them invalid.
  • No order for return of property under judicial review; property return to be pursued under section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 if necessary.