Superior Import / Export Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs & Anor

A search warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 must identify, so far as practicable, the articles or persons sought with sufficient precision for the issuing justice, executing officers and affected occupiers to understand its limits. The justice cannot delegate the statutory relevance assessment to investigating officers by authorising a search for material they themselves deem relevant. Breadth may be justified in a large-scale investigation, but the warrant and application must still identify the suspected offences and explain the connection of listed targets to the alleged criminality. Failure to do so makes the warrants unlawful.

The claimants challenged three search warrants issued by Birmingham Magistrates’ Court under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on HMRC’s application. The warrants concerned business and residential premises connected with an investigation into suspected excise-duty fraud, conspiracy and money laundering involving numerous individuals and companies. The claimants also challenged the searches and seizures, relying on seven grounds including inadequate statutory safeguards, excessive searching, inadequate disclosure and the alleged application of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. The central issue was whether the warrants and application sufficiently identified the permitted search and satisfied the statutory conditions.

1. Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These grounds failed. HMRC’s disclosure about legitimate business material did not show an intention to exceed the warrants. The application sufficiently addressed legal privilege and special procedure material. The short hearing did not establish that the justice had failed to consider the statutory conditions. Allegations of excessive searching involved disputed facts unsuitable for determination on judicial review on the material available. The warrants were made under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, not under section 13 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.
2. Ground 2 succeeded. Section 15(6)(b) required the warrants to identify, so far as practicable, the articles or persons sought. The words authorising a search for material “deemed relevant” impermissibly delegated to HMRC officers the responsibility for applying the relevance criteria in section 8. That responsibility belonged to the issuing justice.
3. The warrants were insufficiently clear and precise. They did not identify the nature of the suspected fraud or offences. Their reference to 237 individuals and companies included many names not mentioned in the application’s narrative, without a brief explanation of each person’s or company’s suspected involvement or connection. The single, impenetrable paragraph describing the search material compounded the lack of clarity.
4. The words “which may include” did not enlarge the warrants’ scope, and specifying computers rather than only their contents was not objectionable. Those points did not cure the delegation and particularisation defects.
5. The warrants were unlawful because HMRC failed to meet section 15 and provide sufficient information for the justice to be properly satisfied under section 8(1). Further submissions were required on relief and the appropriate orders concerning seized material and copies.