Helidon Vuciterni Alsat UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Brent Magistrates' Court & Anor

An application for a warrant under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 requires full and accurate disclosure of material facts and legal difficulties. A warrant is an invasive order and must not be treated as a formality. Material non-disclosure may justify quashing it, even if later searches reveal evidence of other offences. Under regulations 21 and 22, a warrant authorising entry and inspection also carries the necessary power to search and seize. Regulation 22 applies to premises used only as a dwelling, provided its statutory conditions are satisfied. The court did not finally determine whether selling decoder cards in breach of contractual territorial or domestic-use restrictions constituted stating that a product could not legally be sold under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1.

Trading Standards obtained warrants under regulation 22 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to enter the first claimant’s home and the second claimant’s business premises, inspect items and seize documents, equipment, decoder cards and cash. The application alleged likely offences under section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the 2008 Regulations.

The claimants sought to quash the warrants, a declaration that they had been unlawfully executed and damages. The central issues were whether the information supplied to the District Judge involved material non-disclosure, whether the Regulations permitted search and seizure and whether a warrant could authorise entry into a private dwelling.

1. Warrants quashed. The application to the District Judge failed to disclose significant doubts concerning the alleged offences under section 297A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. In light of the subsequent decision in Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure Ltd and Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd, the decoder cards were not unauthorised decoders in the relevant sense. The allegation of likely criminality therefore presented an incomplete and materially misleading picture.
2. The alternative reliance on paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the 2008 Regulations did not independently justify the warrants. The court considered it seriously debatable whether selling goods in breach of contractual restrictions amounted to stating that a product could not legally be sold, particularly where criminal liability under regulation 12 could follow. The court did not decide that issue finally.
3. Full disclosure required more than placing every conceivable contrary argument before the District Judge. The applicant had to draw attention to substantial difficulties in establishing criminal or unlawful conduct and to matters which might affect the choice of a warrant rather than a less intrusive remedy. The possibility that later searches disclosed other offences could not cure the defects in the original application.
4. Regulations 21 and 22 were construed as conferring, where their conditions were met, powers to enter, inspect, search and seize. The powers were separate and disjunctive, and effective inspection and seizure would often be impossible without a power to search. Regulation 22 referred to any premises and was not restricted by the exclusion of dwellings in regulation 21(1). A warrant could therefore authorise entry into a private dwelling.
5. The challenges to the timing and manner of execution, proportionality of the items seized and wording of the warrants were rejected. The warrants were quashed for material non-disclosure, but no declaration that they had been unlawfully executed was made.

This was a judicial review in the Administrative Court of warrants issued by Brent Magistrates’ Court. The Divisional Court quashed the warrants for material non-disclosure but rejected the challenge to their execution.