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 been made for the return of certain documents and new orders sought under the 2002 Act.
Held: The claimant was unconditionally entitled to the return of what was seized as a result of the issue and execution of the warrant which it was conceded was unlawful. However such procedures were not a game, and the result must not result in a restriction of the investigation. Any documents of continuing interest must be returned only to a formal acknowledgement, bvut nor could conditions be imposed on their return.
Ouseley J said: ‘the means whereby SOCA seek to be in no worse position than that in which they would have been had the warrant been lawful is not acceptable as an exercise of this court’s power. In reality, SOCA seeks a restriction on the order for the return of the documents which deprives the claimant of access to them other than under the control of the police. Although it was suggested that the documents be retained by the claimant’s solicitors under orders of the court, the claimant would have no readier access to them than he would have done had the same access restrictions and conditions applied to the retention of those documents at the police station. In effect, the only remedy for the unlawful retention of the documents would have been the ability of the claimant to have restricted access to them.
I agree with my Lord that that is not an adequate remedy for the unlawful possession of the documents. It is for SOCA to find a proper basis upon which it can invoke the assistance of the court in preserving by order documents before a warrant has been obtained or a production order made in cases where there is a perceived or evident risk of destruction. ‘
Judges:
Leveson LJ, Ouseley J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2111 (Admin)
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 – Cook and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency Admn 27-Jul-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421508