Copp, R (On the Application Of) v Basildon Crown Court [2016] EWHC 2416 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

Copp, R (On the Application Of) v Basildon Crown Court [2016] EWHC 2416 (Admin) (29 April 2016)

The warrants were sufficiently specific and justified by the evidence; any technical or administrative breaches after execution did not render the searches or seizures unlawful; the removal of property to Northern Ireland was lawful and rational; and there was no material prejudice to the claimants. The application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2416 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Copp (Geoffrey, Andrew, Joshua, Kathleen); Defendant: Basildon Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Money Laundering, VAT Fraud, Seizure of Property
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Money Laundering VAT Fraud Seizure of Property

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Copp (Geoffrey, Andrew, Joshua, Kathleen)

Claimant

Basildon Crown Court

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants lacked specificity as required by section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
  2. 2 Whether there were reasonable grounds for believing the items sought were likely to be relevant evidence under section 8 of PACE
  3. 3 Whether the warrants were properly endorsed and returned to the court as required by sections 16(9) and 16(10) of PACE

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants were sufficiently specific and justified by the evidence; any technical or administrative breaches after execution did not render the searches or seizures unlawful; the removal of property to Northern Ireland was lawful and rational; and there was no material prejudice to the claimants. The application for permission to apply for judicial review was therefore refused on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay costs of the Acknowledgment of Service assessed at £4,117.40.