R (Cabot Global Ltd and others) v Barkingside Magistrates’ Court and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and London Borough of Redbridge [2015] EWHC 1458 (Admin) – Ss 8, 15(6)(b), 19 and 20 PACE – ss 50 and 53 CJPA – (CPUTR).
1) the word “material” in s 8 PACE could cover a computer as it was a single item or thing, and not a container of a number of things.
- a warrant could authorise seizure of a whole computer even though it might also contain irrelevant material.
2) may not be practicable to take copies of particular information contained within a computer or mobile telephone rather than to seize the equipment itself.
- existence of s 50 CJPA enabling person with power of seizure lawfully on premises to remove certain items does not render the seizure of computers or mobile telephones under s 8 PACE unlawful.
- additional power of seizure under s 50 CJPA does not invalidate seizure of computer under a s 8 PACE warrant if reasonable grounds to believe it may contain relevant evidence, albeit it might also contain irrelevant material.
- not always possible to narrow search warrant to specific documents.
- device discovered in a child’s bedroom does not necessarily fall outside ambit of a s 8 warrant.
- “cash representing the proceeds of criminal activity” was a precise and reasonable description.
undefined: unpaid