Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor v HM Revenue & Customs & Anor

When a judge issues a search warrant under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, reasons should ordinarily be given. Their absence does not automatically invalidate the warrant if the reviewing court can discern that the statutory test was applied. An applicant need not normally disclose every underlying document, provided the sworn application explains the grounds adequately and is strictly scrutinised. The requirement that other methods appeared likely to fail requires a cogent judgment that no lesser measure was likely to secure the documents effectively. A warrant may identify documents broadly where the investigation itself is broad, but it must identify the articles sought so far as practicable.

Three companies connected with Newcastle United sought judicial review of HMRC’s applications for search and seizure warrants and of warrants issued by HH Judge Jameson QC at Leeds Crown Court. The investigation concerned suspected evasion of income tax, National Insurance contributions and VAT arising from payments to football agents.

The claimants alleged inadequate judicial scrutiny, insufficient reading time, non-disclosure of supporting documents and factual errors. They also challenged HMRC’s reasonable grounds, its assessment that less intrusive methods were bound to fail, and the breadth of the warrants. The central issue was whether the warrants had been lawfully issued under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Schedule 1.

1. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The warrants were lawfully issued.
2. A judge issuing a warrant should ordinarily give succinct reasons. This reflects the common law and the need for accountability and effective review. The Criminal Procedure Rules and prescribed forms did not abrogate that principle.
3. Failure to give reasons is not automatically fatal. The reviewing court must determine whether the statutory test was applied. Here, the structured form, detailed application and transcript disclosed a sufficient basis for the decision.
4. HMRC was not generally required to place all underlying evidence before the judge. It had to explain the grounds addressing the statutory criteria, and that explanation had to be strictly scrutinised.
5. The “bound to fail” requirement in Schedule 1 paragraph 2(b)(ii) required a cogent, evidence-based judgment that no lesser measure was likely to secure the documents effectively. The judge also had to be satisfied under paragraph 14(d) that notice of a production or access order might seriously prejudice the investigation.
6. HMRC had reasonable grounds for believing that criminality was involved and adequately explained why lesser measures were ineffective. Its factual errors were immaterial. The broad description of documents was lawful because the investigation was broad and the documents were identified so far as practicable.

The court invited the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to consider amending the warrant form to prompt judges to give reasons routinely. Permission to rely on post-warrant evidence was refused.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The challenged warrants had been issued by HH Judge Jameson QC at the Crown Court at Leeds on 20 April 2017.