Glenn & Co (Essex) Ltd & Ors v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs & Anor

A search warrant under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is lawful only if the statutory criteria are applied. Incomplete reasons are not necessarily fatal if the court can discern a sufficient evidential basis for the decision. Under section 15, the articles sought must be identified so far as practicable, assessed in light of the investigation’s scope. A broad investigation may justify a broad warrant, provided its limits remain intelligible. Failure to supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant breaches the mandatory duty in section 16(5)(c), but the remedy is discretionary.

HMRC obtained search warrants under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 during an investigation into suspected corruption by two HMRC officers, excise fraud, money laundering and unauthorised disclosure of HMRC information. The claimants challenged the warrants and their execution on five grounds.

The issues concerned the sufficiency of the information and reasons, the breadth and drafting of the warrants, compliance with section 15, failure to provide one occupier with a copy under section 16(5)(c), and HMRC’s refusal to stop inspecting or copying seized material pending judicial review.

1. The statutory safeguards in section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 require strict application of the statutory criteria. Reasons should ordinarily be given and recorded, particularly where oral evidence supplements the written information. However, incomplete reasons do not invalidate a warrant if the information and other evidence disclose a sufficient basis for the issuing judge’s decision. The section 8 test was satisfied.
2. Under section 15(2)(c) and section 15(6)(b), the articles sought must be identified so far as practicable. The required degree of specificity depends on the circumstances. A broad investigation may justify a broad warrant, but the warrant must remain sufficiently clear for occupiers and executing officers to understand its limits. The warrant was poorly drafted, but lawful by a narrow margin.
3. The inclusion of computers did not itself invalidate the warrants merely because they might contain irrelevant or privileged material. The evidence justified identifying computers as articles likely to contain relevant material.
4. Section 16(5)(a)–(c) imposes mandatory duties where the occupier is present. The failure to supply the third claimant with a copy of the warrant breached section 16(5)(c). The appropriate relief was a declaration, leaving further consequences to applications under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 or section 78 of PACE.
5. The court will intervene where a prosecuting authority acts perversely or maliciously, but ordinarily will not inhibit an ongoing criminal investigation merely because its legality is challenged. Permission was refused on all grounds except Ground 4, which succeeded to the extent of the declaration.