Philip James O’Brien & Ors v The Crown Prosecution Service & Ors

Philip James O’Brien & Ors v The Crown Prosecution Service & Ors

The EIOs were lawfully issued under Directive 2014/41/EU, including for evidence anticipated to be obtained and for evidence held by a JIT participant. The existence of a JIT did not preclude the use of an EIO. The data from Dubai was lawfully obtained and disclosed. The use of EncroChat data in interviews was legitimate. Proportionality and procedural requirements were met. The claims were out of time, alternative remedies existed, and the Court of Appeal had already determined the issues. Permission for judicial review was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Philip James O’Brien; Claimant: Connor Palmer; Claimant: Ubaid Shaikh; Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: National Crime Agency; Defendant: The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (substantive Decision on Permission)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
European Investigation Order, Admissibility of Evidence, Mutual Legal Assistance, Investigatory Powers, Judicial Review, Joint Investigation Teams, Proceeds of Crime, Procedural Law
Criminal Law Public Law European Union Law European Investigation Order Admissibility of Evidence Mutual Legal Assistance Investigatory Powers Judicial Review +3 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip James O’Brien

Claimant

Connor Palmer

Claimant

Ubaid Shaikh

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

National Crime Agency

Defendant

The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (substantive Decision on Permission)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the European Investigation Order (EIO) was lawfully issued and consistent with Directive 2014/41/EU
  2. 2 Whether the EIO was invalid due to anticipatory request or use in context of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT)
  3. 3 Whether data obtained from Dubai was unlawfully acquired and used

Ratio Decidendi

The EIOs were lawfully issued under Directive 2014/41/EU, including for evidence anticipated to be obtained and for evidence held by a JIT participant. The existence of a JIT did not preclude the use of an EIO. The data from Dubai was lawfully obtained and disclosed. The use of EncroChat data in interviews was legitimate. Proportionality and procedural requirements were met. The claims were out of time, alternative remedies existed, and the Court of Appeal had already determined the issues. Permission for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Applications for permission to apply for judicial review are refused
  • Permission granted for this judgment to be cited, notwithstanding it is a decision on permission only