Bramley, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable Of Derbyshire [1999] EWHC 419 (Admin) (11 May 1999)

Bramley, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable Of Derbyshire [1999] EWHC 419 (Admin) (11 May 1999)

The applicant has shown an arguable case that the warrants were invalid as they did not relate to stolen goods as required by section 26 of the Theft Act 1968. There is also an arguable case that the police failed to properly handle documents potentially protected by legal professional privilege. Permission for judicial review is granted on both grounds.

Citation
[1999] EWHC 419 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: R. Bramley; Second Respondent: Chief Constable of Derbyshire; First Respondent: Chesterfield Justices
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Proceed; Directions Hearing
Outcome
Permission to proceed with judicial review granted; directions given for further conduct of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Legal Professional Privilege, Judicial Review, Police Powers
Criminal Law Administrative Law Search Warrants Legal Professional Privilege Judicial Review Police Powers

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Bramley

Applicant

Chief Constable of Derbyshire

Second Respondent

Chesterfield Justices

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Proceed; Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrants issued under section 26 of the Theft Act 1968 were valid
  2. 2 Whether the police lawfully seized documents protected by legal professional privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has shown an arguable case that the warrants were invalid as they did not relate to stolen goods as required by section 26 of the Theft Act 1968. There is also an arguable case that the police failed to properly handle documents potentially protected by legal professional privilege. Permission for judicial review is granted on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed with judicial review granted; directions given for further conduct of proceedings.

Orders

  • Second Respondent to have 14 days to file and serve any further evidence.
  • Applicant to have 14 days to reply to any further evidence.