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 section 93H(1) ‘an investigation into whether any person has benefited from any criminal conduct’ for all the world as if they were synonymous with ‘an investigation into whether any conduct from which a person has benefitted was criminal, effectively the construction for which [counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions] contends.’
. . and ‘the question to be asked is this: What is the dominant purpose of the application? Is it for criminal investigation purposes – to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if so, to provide evidence of that offence – or is it to determine, in respect of criminal offending – although not necessarily a specific offence which the prosecution already has reasonable grounds for believing (rather than merely suspecting) has been committed – whether, and, if so, to what extent, someone has benefitted from it, or the whereabouts of the proceeds.’


Simon Brown LJ


Times 29-Oct-1996, [1998] QB 243


Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Criminal Justice Act 1988 93H


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
CitedPearce and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 18-Jul-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88487