Dulai & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Magistrates' Court & Anor

A search warrant under Food Safety Act 1990 section 32(2)(b) may be issued where the evidence supports a reasonable inference that advance notice would defeat the search. The applicant must disclose previous cooperative access, but the materiality of any omission depends on what the magistrate might reasonably have decided had the omitted information, together with relevant explanations, been provided. A defect in describing premises or suspected offences will not invalidate a warrant where the description and suspected offences are sufficiently clear. Non-compliance with the notice duty under Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 section 52 does not necessarily invalidate a seizure under section 50. Its consequences depend on the breach, prejudice and the available statutory or judicial remedies.

The Council obtained a warrant under section 32(2) of the Food Safety Act 1990 to search premises occupied by food businesses and seize evidence concerning allegedly misdescribed basmati rice. The Council then exercised the additional seizure power in section 50 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

The Traders applied to the Crown Court under section 59 of the 2001 Act for the return of the property. The Crown Court ordered its return, finding that the warrant requirements had not been met and that material information had not been disclosed. The Council challenged that order, while the Traders pursued judicial review of the warrant and seizure. The central issues were the regularity of the warrant and the consequences of non-compliance with section 52.

1. Outcome. The Traders’ judicial review claim was dismissed. The Council’s claim was granted and the Crown Court order was quashed. The court left unresolved whether the Crown Court could determine the validity of a search warrant under section 59 where the warrant had not been set aside.
2. Warrant under section 32(2)(b). The evidence of suspected extensive and profitable food fraud supported the inference that, if given notice of a search, the occupiers might remove or destroy evidence. It was unnecessary for the officer to explain expressly why notice would defeat the object of the entry when the inference was obvious. The Crown Court judge’s contrary conclusion was legally unsustainable and Wednesbury unreasonable.
3. Disclosure. The Council should have disclosed the previous unchallenged visits to the premises and the access previously given to its officers. However, the relevant question was whether the omitted information might reasonably have led the magistrate to refuse the warrant. The officer could properly have explained his concerns about earlier cooperation and delay. On that complete account, refusal would not reasonably have followed.
4. Other alleged defects. The warrant’s reference to associated outbuildings and vehicles within the site boundary was sufficiently certain and, in any event, surplusage because no such places existed. The suspected offences were sufficiently apparent from the information and supporting statement.
5. Section 52 notice. Parliament had not made compliance with section 52 an express condition of lawful seizure. Comparisons with duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including the directory character of the record duty considered in Krohn v DPP [1997] C.O.D. 345, supported that conclusion. Non-compliance is instead a matter for consideration under section 59, judicial review, or section 78 of the 1984 Act. In the absence of deliberate disregard or prejudice, the Council’s defective notice did not invalidate the seizure.

The judgment itself describes the Crown Court order challenged by the Council and the related judicial review proceedings.

• Chelmsford Crown Court: Her Honour Judge Walden-Smith ordered the return of the seized property under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Council’s judicial review claim was granted, the Crown Court order was quashed, and the Traders’ claim was dismissed.