Bhatti & Ors v Croydon Magistrates' Court & Ors

A copy of a search warrant supplied under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 must reproduce the complete warrant, including any schedule identifying the premises authorised for search. A partial copy supplemented by information inserted by the executing officer does not satisfy the statutory obligation.

Non-compliance with the requirements governing warrants and their execution renders the entry, search and seizure unlawful. Good faith, operational convenience and compliance with administrative guidance cannot justify a departure from the statutory safeguards. The unlawfully seized material must be returned, although its admissibility in any criminal trial is a separate question.

The first and third claimants were being prosecuted for alleged offences connected with the operation of the fourth claimant, a college owned and operated by them. Their properties and the college were searched under warrants issued by a magistrate.

Permission for judicial review was refused on most grounds, but was granted on the issue whether the police had complied with the obligation to supply a copy of each warrant. The copies supplied identified the general warrant but omitted the schedule specifying the premises, instead recording the relevant address in a box completed by an officer. The central issues were whether that document was a proper copy and, if not, what consequence followed for the searches and seized material.

1. Complete copy required. The application and execution of search warrants are governed by Part 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under section 16(5), the occupier must be supplied with a copy of the warrant. The schedule identifying the premises is a crucial and integral part of the warrant. A document omitting that schedule is not a copy of the warrant.
2. The statutory purpose is to provide the occupier with documentary assurance that the police have authority to enter and search the particular premises. That purpose is frustrated where the premises are added by the executing officer after the warrant has been issued. The police may protect information about other premises by redaction or by obtaining separate warrants, but operational requirements cannot rewrite the statute. The guidance followed by the officers was therefore wrong, although their conduct was in good faith.
3. Effect of non-compliance. Section 15(1) makes the entry and search unlawful unless the requirements of both sections 15 and 16 are satisfied. The court followed the reasoning in R v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary, ex parte Parker and the subsequent line of authority, and declined to follow the contrary obiter view in R v Longman. The breach of section 16(5) consequently rendered the entry, search and seizure unlawful.
4. The court declined to follow the obiter observations in Fisher v Chief Constable of the Cumbria Constabulary suggesting that some procedural breaches might not invalidate execution of a warrant. The material obtained had to be returned. The question of damages was remitted to a Queen's Bench Division judge. The admissibility of any material in a criminal trial remained a separate issue, governed in the ordinary way subject to section 78 of the Act.

Calvert-Smith J agreed.

High Court (Administrative Court): Permission on paper was refused by Calvert Smith J. On renewal, Sullivan LJ and Blair J rejected most grounds as unsuitable for judicial review but granted permission on the issue concerning the copies of the search warrants. The Divisional Court allowed the claim on that issue, declared the searches unlawful, ordered return of the seized material and remitted damages.