Anand, R (on the application of) v Revenue and Customs

A search warrant must identify, so far as practicable, the articles sought. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 15(6) imposes requirements independent of the grounds for issuing a warrant under section 8. The warrant must be sufficiently precise and self-contained to enable both executing officers and persons whose property is affected to understand its scope. Information supplied to the magistrates, or an operational briefing given to officers, cannot cure an insufficient warrant. Delay in bringing judicial review is relevant to the court’s discretion but is not an automatic bar. A material non-disclosure invalidates a warrant only if the correct information would have made a difference to the decision to issue it. The Crown Court remains the appropriate forum for deciding whether unlawfully obtained evidence should be admitted under section 78.

The claimant, the director of a film company under investigation for suspected fraud, challenged a warrant issued by lay magistrates under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The warrant authorised the seizure of broad classes of business records, financial records, electronic media and telephones at residential premises.

He argued that the warrant failed to comply with section 15(6)(b) because it did not identify the relevant business, investigation or offences. He also alleged material non-disclosure in the information placed before the magistrates. The court considered the effect of delay, the statutory relationship between sections 8 and 15, and the consequences of quashing the warrant.

1. Delay. The claim was not brought promptly under CPR rule 54.5(1). That did not automatically bar review. The court permitted the claim to proceed because the subject matter concerned liberty and intrusion into the home, the claim had substantive merit, and no significant prejudice from the delay was shown.
2. Precision of the warrant. Section 15(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 imposes requirements independent of section 8. Section 8 concerns the matters of which the justice must be satisfied before issuing a warrant. Section 15(6) concerns the contents of the warrant and the material which officers are entitled to seek. The warrant must be a self-contained statement of the articles authorised for search.
3. The warrant was unlawful under section 15(6)(b). It authorised seizure of all business records and electronic media without identifying the relevant business or investigation. The reference to items linked to offences under investigation was also insufficient because the offences were not identified. The information before the magistrates disclosed the true scope of the material sought, and it would have been practicable to express that scope in the warrant. An officers’ briefing could not cure the defect.
4. Non-disclosure. HMRC had inaccurately stated that the company’s accountants had been asked for a film clip. The court accepted that the error was capable of being material, but concluded that the magistrates would have issued the warrant even if the correct information had been given. Permission was therefore refused on that ground.
5. Relief and consequences. The court granted a declaration that the warrant was unlawful and quashed it. It made no order concerning derivative material, leaving admissibility to the Crown Court under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The claimant received standard-basis costs summarily assessed at £10,000.