Diogo Santos-Coelho, R (on the application of) v Carlisle Magistrates Court & Anor
[2024] EWHC 875 (Admin)
Mohammed Naseem Dost & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester & Anor
8 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2799 (Admin)
High Court
The police got a search warrant wrong, but they didn't do it on purpose. The court said they can still try to keep what they found, but a different judge will decide if they are allowed to.
Key Facts
- •Claimants sought judicial review of search warrants issued by the Crown Court and executed by HMRC.
- •HMRC conceded the judicial review application.
- •The remaining issue was whether to order the return of seized items and prohibit HMRC's s.59 CJPA application for retention.
- •Inconsistency existed between the application form and skeleton argument regarding access conditions.
- •HMRC failed to disclose the skeleton argument initially.
- •HMRC raised a service point, later withdrawn.
- •HMRC's s.59 application and a restraint order were issued in July 2024.
Legal Principles
Relief following a successful challenge to a search warrant doesn't preclude an s.59 CJPA application for retention of seized material.
Case Law
s.59 CJPA allows retention of seized property if return would immediately make a new warrant lawful or an order under other statutory provisions appropriate.
CJPA 2001, s.59(6) and (7)
Administrative Court may deny an agency benefit from its wrongdoing by ordering return/destruction of material despite s.59 application.
R (Santos-Coelho) v NCA [2024] EWHC 875 (Admin), [23]-[24]
Factors relevant to ordering return of unlawfully seized items: misleading the court, reasons for misleading information, conduct during proceedings, basis for retention.
R (Kouyoumjian & Kouyoumjian) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court [2014] EWHC 4028 (Admin), [34]-[35]
Prima facie, material seized via unlawful warrants should be returned unless sufficient reason exists.
R (Kouyoumjian & Kouyoumjian) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court [2014] EWHC 4028 (Admin), [40]-[42]
Administrative Court exercises restraint in ordering return, considering Parliament's assignment of retention determination to the Crown Court.
R (Chatwani and others) v NCA [2015] EWHC 1283 (Admin), [136]-[141]
Bad faith isn't a prerequisite for denying an agency the benefit of an illegal search; egregious conduct may suffice.
R (Chatwani and others) v NCA [2015] EWHC 1283 (Admin), [136]-[141]
Specific authorization is generally required for service by email.
CPR PD 6A para. 4.1(2)(b)
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31 (3C) and (3D) relevant to granting leave for judicial review considering whether the outcome would have been substantially different.
Case Law
Outcomes
HMRC is not precluded from applying to the Crown Court under s.59 CJPA for permission to retain the seized items.
No bad faith or egregious conduct was found to justify a rare order precluding the s.59 application. While serious errors occurred, they were the result of innocent errors, not intentional misconduct.
Similar Cases
Kingdom Corporate Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3315 (Admin)
Newcastle United Football Company Limited v Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] EWHC 3021 (Admin)
Catherine Gedman v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary & Anor
[2023] EWHC 723 (KB)
DLR Holdings Limited & Anor, R (on the application of) v York Magistrates’ Court & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2817 (Admin)