The claimants sought review of a decision of the Serious Organised Crime Agency to seize documents which have been the subject of the unlawful execution of a search warrant, purporting to act for this record seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. SOCA, with identical powers to those of the police, acknowledged that the original seizure following the execution of search warrants was unlawful by reason of failure to comply with the law governing the drafting and execution of the warrants, but maintained that section 19 of PACE permits the subsequent seizure which they undertook.
Held: SOCA were not entitled to use section 19 of PACE to keep documents that had been unlawfully seized simply by seeking a receipt for their return.
Judges:
Leveson LJ
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2119 (Admin), [2011] 1 WLR 144, [2010] Lloyds Rep FC 545, [2010] ACD 88
Links:
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(a)(iii), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 343(2)(b) 345
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited by:
Cited – Cummins, Regina (on The Application of) v Manchester Crown Court Admn 27-Jul-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that search warrants on his premises issued under money laundering suspicions were unlawful. The warrants did not comply with the 1984 Act, having failed satisfactorily to specify their purpose. Limited offers had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.421507
