The appellants challenged rejection of their complaints that actions of police officers searching their ‘squats’ when executing search warrants, were unlawful in that they had been intended not as descrbed for the search for stolen goods, but rather to prevent protests against the forthcoming royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed: ‘the timing of the execution of the warrants was the result of an operational decision which was conditioned by a desire to maximise Royal Wedding security gains but which did not mean that the dominant purpose of the search itself was anything other than that which was authorised by the lawfully obtained warrants.’
Maurice Kay VP, Patten, Fulford LJJ
 EWCA Civ 866
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Guildford Crown Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles QBD 29-Oct-1996
The claimant objected to the use by the respondent of orders under the 1988 Act to produce records for investigation and tracing proceeds.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘In my judgment, therefore, it would be wrong to construe the words in . .
Cited – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 7-Apr-1998
An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of . .
Cited – Regina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley QBD 10-Nov-1999
When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513394