Hoque & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs

Hoque & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Revenue and Customs

The warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they did not identify, so far as practicable, the articles to be sought and left excessive discretion to the officer. Consequently, the searches and seizures were unlawful. However, there were reasonable grounds for the application, and the inclusion of computers and telephones was justified. Relief is limited to a declaration of unlawfulness; damages are adjourned, and no order is made for the return of copies. Costs are awarded at one third of the assessed amount.

Parties
Claimant: Rabiul Hoque; Claimant: Mridul Kanti Das; First Defendant: City of London Magistrates' Court; Second Defendant: The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; declaration granted; damages adjourned; costs awarded at one third of assessed amount.
Legal Topics
Validity of Search Warrants, Section 15(6)(b) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Cheating the Revenue, Costs Assessment
Criminal Law Judicial Review Search and Seizure Validity of Search Warrants Section 15(6)(b) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Cheating the Revenue Costs Assessment

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabiul Hoque

Claimant

Mridul Kanti Das

Claimant

City of London Magistrates' Court

First Defendant

The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants complied with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the warrants lawfully authorised the seizure of computers and electronic equipment under section 8(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the searches and seizures were unlawful due to defects in the warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they did not identify, so far as practicable, the articles to be sought and left excessive discretion to the officer. Consequently, the searches and seizures were unlawful. However, there were reasonable grounds for the application, and the inclusion of computers and telephones was justified. Relief is limited to a declaration of unlawfulness; damages are adjourned, and no order is made for the return of copies. Costs are awarded at one third of the assessed amount.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; declaration granted; damages adjourned; costs awarded at one third of assessed amount.

Orders

  • Declaration that the warrants issued on 15 February 2012 did not comply with section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that the searches and seizures on 20 February 2012 were unlawful.
  • Issue of damages adjourned to a single judge.