Hargreaves v Brecknock and Radnorshire Magistrates Court

A warrant under regulation 22 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 requires the justice to address the statutory conditions in two stages: reasonable grounds for Condition A or B, followed by Condition C, D or E. A warrant fails where the decision-making record does not show that the required conditions were considered and satisfied. Regulation 21 also carries an implied power to search premises lawfully entered, and to seize relevant documents, including electronically stored information and computers containing it. The Administrative Court is the proper forum to challenge the validity of a warrant. A video recording of execution is a record of events, rather than an exercise of statutory power, and is permissible subject to proportionate retention and appropriate notice.

The claimants sought judicial review of two warrants issued by the Brecknock and Radnorshire Magistrates Court on the application of Powys County Council Trading Standards. The warrants authorised entry to two private addresses used both as homes and for business purposes, and were executed during an investigation into alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

The claim challenged the warrants’ jurisdictional basis, the scope of seizures, compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and video recording during execution. The central issues were whether regulation 22 had been properly applied, whether regulation 21 permitted the searches and seizures, and what relief should follow.

1. The claim succeeded in relation to the warrants. The Administrative Court was the appropriate forum to challenge their validity. An application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could address the fairness and admissibility of evidence in the Crown Court, but could not quash the warrants. The approach in R (Lees) v Solihull Magistrates Court and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue [2013] EWHC 3779 was followed.
2. Regulation 21 supplies the substantive enforcement powers, while regulation 22 supplies the warrant procedure. The justice had to be satisfied first that there were reasonable grounds for believing that Condition A or B was met, and then that Condition C, D or E was met. The applications and the magistrate’s decisions did not demonstrate adequate consideration of Condition A or identify the conditions relied upon in the decisions. The failure properly to consider and apply regulation 22 was fatal, and both warrants were quashed.
3. Regulation 21 carries an implied power to search premises lawfully entered. It permits searches for relevant goods and documents, including searches of cupboards, desks, cabinets, back rooms and storage areas. Documents may be seized under regulation 21(1)(d), and “document” includes electronically recorded information under regulation 21(4). The seizure of computers was lawful where there was reason to believe that they contained documents required as evidence. The reasoning in R (on the application of Helidon Vuciterni) v Brent Magistrates Court [2012] EWCA 2140 was accepted and applied.
4. Video recording the execution of a warrant is a contemporaneous record, not an exercise of a statutory power requiring separate authorisation. Occupiers should be told that filming is taking place. Retention for the purposes and duration of criminal proceedings, subject to appeals, would be a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights. No further relief was granted because the items seized were within regulation 21 and could lawfully have been obtained without warrants.

The judgment describes the claim as a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. It does not state any prior appellate decision in the same litigation.