Wood v North Avon Magistrates Court

Applications for search warrants under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 8, require rigorous and recorded consideration of every statutory criterion. The applicant must provide the magistrate with full, complete and frank disclosure of material matters, including earlier searches relevant to the existence of further evidence and to the need for an ex parte warrant. Defects and non-disclosure do not automatically invalidate a warrant where the court is satisfied that the magistrate in fact applied the statutory criteria, the omission was not made in bad faith, and it was immaterial. A seizure under section 19 is limited to items on the premises covered by the warrant. The court must not assume that an adjacent car park falls within that scope.

The claimants sought judicial review of a warrant issued by North Avon Magistrates' Court under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The warrant authorised a search of premises associated with alleged fraudulent internet trading. The claim challenged the adequacy of the magistrate's consideration and recorded reasons, the sufficiency and accuracy of the information supplied, alleged non-disclosure of an earlier police visit, the asserted asset-recovery purpose, the seizure of documents relating to another company, and the seizure of a Mercedes parked in a car park.

The central issues were whether the warrant was lawfully issued and whether the Mercedes fell within the warrant's territorial scope or could otherwise be seized under section 19.

1. Statutory criteria and reasons. A magistrate issuing a section 8 warrant must rigorously consider the criteria in section 8(1), including whether an indictable offence has been committed and whether relevant material of substantial value is likely to be found. The reasons for satisfaction should be recorded contemporaneously. The locally used form was misleading and inadequate because it addressed human-rights and ex parte matters without recording the section 8(1)(a)-(c) criteria. Nevertheless, the evidence showed that the magistrate had considered the information, was satisfied of the statutory requirements, and had initialled it. The first ground therefore failed.
2. Information and disclosure. The information disclosed a sufficient basis for believing that relevant and valuable evidence would be found. The police should have disclosed the earlier Dorset police search, both because it bore on the existence of further evidence and because it was relevant to whether advance warning would frustrate or seriously prejudice the search. The omission was an error, not bad faith, and did not materially undermine the magistrate's satisfaction. The warrant was not quashed.
3. Purpose and seized documents. The reference to evidence relevant to asset recovery did not establish an impermissible purpose under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; the material could constitute evidence of fraud. Documents concerning a similarly named company were also within the scope of relevant evidence.
4. Mercedes. Section 19 permits seizure of an item on premises where the statutory conditions are met. The warrant covered Flat 2 and access through the common parts, but there was insufficient evidence that the car park was part of those premises. The court would not assume that the warrant extended to it. The seizure of the Mercedes was therefore unlawful.
5. The application was otherwise refused. A declaration was to be drawn in relation to the Mercedes, with liberty to apply. There was no order as to costs.