Copp, R (On the Application Of) v Basildon Crown Court

Search warrants under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 must be sufficiently precise to identify the articles or persons sought, but the description may be broad where the investigative context makes its meaning objectively clear. The court assesses the warrant without impermissible hindsight based on items later seized.

Material may be relevant evidence where it bears on the alleged offences and would be admissible at trial. A later breach of statutory requirements concerning endorsement or return of a warrant does not automatically invalidate an otherwise lawful search. Relief remains discretionary and requires sufficient prejudice. Secure storage of seized property outside England and Wales may be lawful where justified by evidential and security considerations.

Four members of the Copp family sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning 11 search warrants issued by Basildon Crown Court and Basildon Magistrates’ Court under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The warrants arose from an investigation into alleged cheating the Revenue and money laundering.

Cheema-Grubb J refused permission on the papers on 24 March 2016. The claimants renewed the application, challenging the specificity and evidential basis of the warrants, the scope of the searches, the endorsement and return of the warrants, and the removal of seized property to Northern Ireland.

1. Permission refused. The proposed judicial review claim was unarguable on all grounds.
2. The descriptions in the section 8 warrants, including material displaying signs of extravagant wealth, were sufficiently precise. In the investigative context, those executing the warrants and those affected by them could identify whether an individual item fell within their terms. The court rejected reliance on the property actually seized as impermissible hindsight.
3. The Schedule 1 warrant was directed to business records concerning the operation of QPS and CPS and was limited by the requirement that the material be likely to be relevant. There were reasonable grounds for believing that the material sought under both types of warrant was relevant evidence. Evidence of extravagant expenditure inconsistent with declared earnings could be admissible and relevant to the alleged offences.
4. The challenge to excessive searching was not arguable. The presence of an auctioneer’s representative to assist valuation was intended to avoid unnecessary seizures, and the later recognition that some items should be returned did not establish that the searches were excessive when conducted.
5. Following R (Hicks) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis and Others [2012] EWHC 1947 (Admin), even assuming that section 15(1) applied to post-search events, a breach of section 16 would not necessarily require relief. The court found no material prejudice in the endorsement or return issues. Lord Justice Burnett further held that the construction in Hicks was correct and consistent with Regina v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993] QB 577.
6. Removal of seized items to secure auctioneer premises in Northern Ireland was lawful and rational. The items remained potentially relevant to any prosecution, and the evidence provided a clear security and storage rationale.
7. Costs of the application were summarily assessed at £4,117.40.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) Cheema-Grubb J refused permission on the papers on 24 March 2016. The renewed application was heard by Carr J and Burnett LJ, who refused permission on all grounds.