This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the material seized under it. In this case the information before the justice of the peace granting the warrant was later redacted to such an extent that what is available to the claimant is not a sufficient legal basis for it or the retention of property seized. Courts below have authorised the redactions on public interest grounds, but the claimant contends that this constitutes a closed material procedure which is without statutory foundation.
Held: Review refused.
Burnett LJ, Cranston J
 EWHC 916 (Admin),  WLR(D) 209,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 412,  Crim LR 664,  2 Cr App R 17, (2016) 180 JP 428,  1 WLR 3073, 180 JP 428
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8
England and Wales
Cited – Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
Cited – Al-Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting . .
Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
Cited – AHK and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Jun-2013
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Cited – Golfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .
Appeal from – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.562904