Haly, R (on the application of) v West Midlands Police

Section 16(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires endorsement of the official court warrant, not copies left at searched premises. The statutory requirement concerns recording matters found during the search and therefore operates after the search has concluded. Section 15(1) addresses the lawfulness of the entry and search itself. A later failure to endorse or return an executed warrant does not retrospectively invalidate an otherwise lawful search. A claim for property damage and trespass must ordinarily be brought by action, supported by evidence of loss.

Police officers executed search warrants at premises occupied by the claimant and seized cannabis, cash and related items. The court copy of the warrant was endorsed, but the copy left at the premises was not. The claimant also alleged breaches of Code B of the Code of Practice to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The judicial review claim sought a declaration that the entry, search and seizure were unlawful, together with damages for damage to the front door. The central issue was whether section 16(9) required copies left at the premises to be endorsed and, if so, whether non-compliance invalidated the search.

1. The claim was dismissed.
2. Section 16(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 refers to “a warrant”, in contrast with references to “copies”. Read with section 16(10), the expression denotes the official court warrant, which can be returned to the issuing court. It does not require endorsement of copies left with occupiers.
3. That construction is supported by practicality. Copies may be handed to occupiers, who could not be required to return them for endorsement. An endorsement requirement would also be unworkable where one warrant covered several properties, because items found at later premises could not be recorded on a copy left at earlier premises.
4. In any event, section 15(1) concerns the conduct of the entry and search. The endorsement process under section 16(9) records matters found during the search and necessarily occurs after the search has ended. A failure in that later process therefore does not retrospectively render the entry or search unlawful. The court applied the approach stated in H v Commissioner of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1947 (Admin).
5. The damages claim did not strictly arise. A claim for trespass to property should be brought by action in the County Court with evidence of loss. There was also doubt whether the tenant had suffered financial loss where the landlord was responsible for repairing the structure.