C, Regina (on the Application of) v ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court: Admn 26 Sep 2006

Complaint was made about the slipshod completion of applications for search warrants. The nature of the review of compliance with Section 24(4) was to be that appropriate to Section 24(6). Underhill J held: ’26. The terms of s-s. (5) are new and there is no authority on their effect. The previous s. 24 (6) provided simply that where a constable had reasonable grounds to suspect a person of having committed an arrestable offence he had a power to arrest without a warrant. The limits on the exercise of that power, and the extent of its reviewability, have been considered in a number of cases – of which I was referred in particular to Holgate-Mohammed v. Duke [1984] 1 AC 437 , Cumming v. Chief Constable of Northumbria [2003] EWCA Civ 1844 and Al Fayed v. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [2004] EWCA Civ 1579 . In Al Fayed Auld LJ, at para. 83, noted that the earlier authorities established that the exercise of the discretion was reviewable only on Wednesbury principles.’
References: [2006] EWHC 2352 (Admin), [2008] Po LR 23
Links: Bailii
Judges: Underhill J
Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 24(4)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Redknapp and Another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and Another Admn 23-May-2008
    The claimant challenged the legality of a search warrant and the method of its execution on his home. He complained that the police had ensured publicity for the execution of the warrant.
    Held: The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be . .
    (, [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin), Times 16-Jun-08, (2008) 172 JPN 548, [2009] 1 All ER 229, (2008) 172 JP 388, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 466, [2008] 1 All ER 229, [2009] 1 WLR 2091)
  • Cited – Richardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 29-Mar-2011
    The claimant, a teacher, said he had been unlawfully arrested and detained after an allegation of assault from a pupil. Having attended the police station voluntarily, he said that the circumstances did not satisfy the required precondition that an . .
    (, [2011] EWHC 773 (QB), [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 1)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.245354