Goode, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Nottingham

A challenge to search warrants must be brought promptly. An omission in a warrant may make the resulting search unlawful without requiring the warrant itself to be quashed. Discretionary relief remains necessary.

An inaccurate description in an ex parte application does not vitiate a warrant where the judge would have issued it on corrected information. A warrant does not impliedly authorise searching for legally privileged material. Section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 does not permit the Crown Court to invalidate a judicial warrant.

The claimant sought judicial review of two warrants issued by Nottingham Crown Court on 13 May 2011 and executed on 25 May 2011. They authorised searches of his home and his employers’ offices for material relating to an alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The claimant alleged defects in the application, insufficient particularity, unlawful exposure to legally privileged material, unfairness and delay. He also sought return of seized property under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The central issues were whether permission should be granted out of time, whether the warrants or searches were unlawful, and whether the Crown Court could determine the validity of the warrants.

1. The claim was issued about 21 months after execution and was grossly out of time under CPR 54.5(1). The absence of a recording or contemporaneous note of the warrant hearing caused serious prejudice. The court considered the merits but refused permission, taking delay and prejudice into account.
2. An applicant for an ex parte warrant must present the evidence accurately and fairly and disclose matters relevant to the statutory conditions. The description of Gunn’s payment as being made to Goode personally was a serious but mistaken inaccuracy, not bad faith. Corrected information would still have supported a reasonable belief that suspicious financial transactions might be found, so the error would not have altered the decision to issue the warrants.
3. The warrants did not authorise a search for legally privileged material merely because such material might be found among computer equipment. Sections 50 and 52 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 permitted removal for later determination or separation where immediate separation was impracticable. An inaccurate section 52 notice did not remove those powers.
4. The evidence supported the judge’s inference that notice of an application under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 might seriously prejudice the investigation. The warrants sufficiently defined the boundaries of the searches.
5. Omission of the applying officer’s name breached section 15(6)(a), making the entries and searches unlawful under section 15(1). It was nevertheless a technical defect which did not justify quashing the warrants or granting a declaration after execution.
6. Section 59(3)(a) concerns seizure exceeding a statutory or warrant power. It does not enable the Crown Court to invalidate a warrant issued with judicial authority. Remaining disputes about listing, copying, retention or privileged material were suitable for a section 59 application. Permission was refused.

This was a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court. Flaux J adjourned a Crown Court application under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to enable the claimant to challenge the validity of the warrants in the Administrative Court. Permission was refused.