CECIL STEVEN HEILLIGGER v WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT & Anor.

A search warrant must identify, so far as practicable, the articles sought. If it does not, the entry, search and seizure are unlawful under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A complete copy of a warrant may satisfy the statutory copying and certification requirements even though its pages are not separately signed or attached. Where property has been unlawfully seized, the Administrative Court should ordinarily allow the police a short opportunity to apply under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The court must exercise its remedial discretion by balancing the statutory scheme, the seriousness of the investigation, police conduct, delay, prejudice and the interests of justice. The discretion may justify immediate return where the police conduct is sufficiently egregious or a section 59 application would inevitably fail.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning a search warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court and executed by Metropolitan Police officers in connection with an overseas investigation and extradition request from Sint Maarten. The warrant authorised searches for broadly described documents, electronic devices, cash and other property. The police accepted that the warrant failed to identify the articles sought with sufficient precision and that the search and seizure were unlawful.

The claimant also challenged the form of the copy left at the premises and sought return of the seized property, repayment of cash, damages for trespass and costs. The central issues were whether the copy complied with the statutory requirements, whether the police should be permitted to seek continued retention under section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and what relief was appropriate.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. Items B, D and G of the warrant did not identify, so far as practicable, the articles sought. The warrant did not explain the allegations, identify the relevant countries or clarify the persons referred to. It therefore breached section 15(6)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under section 15(1), the entry and search were unlawful.
2. Ground 2 failed. The two pages left at the premises formed a complete copy of the warrant. The second page was certified and the first page was headed “occupier’s copy”. Sections 15(8) and 16(5)(c) did not require every page to be signed or initialled, nor did they require the pages to be physically attached. Those steps were desirable safeguards, but not statutory requirements.
3. Ground 3 succeeded. The defective warrant could not justify seizure of the cash. No alternative power to seize or retain it, or to pay it into a bank account, had been identified.
4. Section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 applies in foreign as well as domestic cases. Its wording is not confined to property required for a domestic prosecution. The existence of that statutory route is ordinarily a powerful reason for the Administrative Court to exercise restraint and avoid immediate return.
5. The discretion required consideration of the availability of section 59, the seriousness of the warrant defects, delay in applying, bad faith or candour failures, the conduct of overseas authorities, prejudice to the claimant and the seriousness of the investigation. The police’s less than scrupulous warrant application and prolonged delay weighed in favour of immediate return, but the case fell short of the egregious conduct in Chatwani and Kouyoumjian.
6. The claim succeeded. The claimant was entitled to repayment of the cash and accrued interest, £5,000 damages for trespass to land and goods, a declaration that the search and seizure were unlawful, and costs. The remaining property was to be returned unless the police made a section 59 application within 14 days. Cannabis was excluded from any return order under the Bowmakers exception.