The claimant sought judicial review of warrants issued at the request of the respondent, saying that they failed to comply with the requirements of section 15, and that no magistrate could reasonably have been satisfied that section 8 had been complied with.
Held: ‘ anyone reading the warrant could not ascertain the limits of Mr Blackwell’s authority to search for and seize objects which he deemed to be relevant. The investigation could, so far as the occupier was concerned, have comprised and embraced anything within the powers of HMRC to investigate. There is, it seem to me, a further flaw in the warrants as issued. It is the responsibility of the justice of the peace to apply the access criteria of section 8(1)(a)-(e). Section 8 does not permit the justice of the peace to delegate to the constable the very responsibility which the justice of the peace is exercising under section 8(1). On the contrary, the evidence submitted by the constable should establish to the satisfaction of the justice of the peace reasonable grounds for believing that the articles to be identified in the warrant so far as practicable meet the access criteria in section 8(1).’
Pitchford LJ, Kenneth Parker J
[2013] EWHC 725 (Admin)
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1) 15(6)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another Admn 5-Dec-2013
The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.491901