Brook & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Preston Crown Court

Brook & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Preston Crown Court

The warrants were unlawful because they were drawn too widely and failed to specify with sufficient precision the material to be seized, contrary to statutory requirements. In the case of Mr Garthwaite, the warrant was also issued on the basis of a material error of fact and misdescription of evidence. The failings...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Martin Brook; Claimant: Matthew Brook; Claimant: Oliver James Garthwaite; Defendant: Preston Crown Court; Defendant: Preston Magistrates Court; Interested Party: Chief Constable of Lancashire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims allowed; search warrants declared unlawful and quashed.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Disclosure Obligations, Material Misrepresentation, Scope of Warrants, Retention of Seized Material
Criminal Law Judicial Review Police Powers Search Warrants Disclosure Obligations Material Misrepresentation Scope of Warrants Retention of Seized Material

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Brook

Claimant

Matthew Brook

Claimant

Oliver James Garthwaite

Claimant

Preston Crown Court

Defendant

Preston Magistrates Court

Defendant

Chief Constable of Lancashire Police

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants were lawfully issued
  2. 2 Whether there was material misrepresentation or non-disclosure by the police in the applications
  3. 3 Whether the warrants were impermissibly wide in scope

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants were unlawful because they were drawn too widely and failed to specify with sufficient precision the material to be seized, contrary to statutory requirements. In the case of Mr Garthwaite, the warrant was also issued on the basis of a material error of fact and misdescription of evidence. The failings in the applications and subsequent conduct justified quashing the warrants and, in Mr Garthwaite's case, refusing permission to retain seized material.

Court Disposition

Claims allowed; search warrants declared unlawful and quashed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the search warrants were unlawful and are quashed.
  • Permission for Lancashire Police to apply to retain seized material under s.59 PACE in respect of the first warrant, with interim preservation order.