Chaudhary, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol Crown Court & Anor

A Crown Court judge hearing an application under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 cannot invalidate a search warrant issued by another judge of equal jurisdiction. A challenge to the warrant’s validity, including an allegation that it is insufficiently particularised under section 15(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, must be brought by judicial review.

Section 16(8) limits the area of search. An excess seizure does not necessarily invalidate the whole entry, search and seizure. The material taken outside the warrant’s scope should be returned, with damages potentially available.

HMRC obtained warrants from Bristol Crown Court to search premises connected with Accident Claim Helpline Ltd and its director, Mohammad Mumtaz Chaudhary, during a fraud investigation. Large quantities of documents and computer material were seized, some potentially subject to legal professional privilege.

The claimant applied under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the return of the seized property. Bristol Crown Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the warrants and would, in any event, have rejected the application on the merits. The claimant sought judicial review, raising the validity and scope of the warrants and alleged excessive seizure.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court agreed with the conclusion of Bristol Crown Court that section 59 did not confer jurisdiction to determine the validity of warrants issued by another Crown Court judge.

2. The issue was governed by the approach in R (Goode) v Nottingham Crown Court [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin). Issuing a warrant is a judicial act. A court of equal jurisdiction cannot declare another judge’s warrant invalid. The reference in section 59(3)(a) to there being no power to make a seizure concerns a seizure exceeding a statutory power or the authority conferred by the warrant. It does not permit a collateral challenge to the warrant itself.

3. The same conclusion was supported by Bell v Greater Manchester Police [2005] EWCA Civ 902. The proper route for challenging the validity of a warrant is judicial review. The court also approved the relevant obiter observation in R (Dulai) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court (DC) [2012] EWHC 1055 (Admin).

4. As to section 16(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the court followed the reasoning of Kennedy LJ in R v Chesterfield Justices, ex parte Bramley [2000] QB 576. Section 16(8) confines the area of search; it does not regulate seizure in such a way that an improper seizure necessarily invalidates the whole search. Any documents taken outside the warrant’s authority should be returned, and damages may be available.

5. The court considered that the claimant had not established any material breach. The computers were covered by the section 50 notice, and the relevant documents from the paper files had been returned once legal professional privilege was raised. There was therefore no outstanding property requiring return, and judicial review relief was not justified.

6. The costs issue was adjourned pending the Court of Appeal’s decision in Panesar.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Judicial review of Bristol Crown Court’s decision was dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that the section 59 application could not challenge the validity of the warrants.
• Bristol Crown Court: The court held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the warrants and indicated that the application would in any event have failed on its merits.