R (GSX) v Southwark Crown Court and Ors [2026] EWHC 538 (Admin) – Ss 8, 9 and 15(6)(b) PACE - s 59(6) and (7) CJPA. 1) s 8(1)(d) PACE prohibits s 8 warrant where reasonable grounds for believing items sought subject to legal professional privilege or are business material held in confidence.
- warrant application defective when not give required information.
- warrant application flawed when includes SIF giving potential impression subject involved in other wrongdoing.
2) court to exercise restraint in preventing recourse to s 59 CJPA jurisdiction (to retain unlawfully seized material).
- not in public interest for person to be better protected from prosecution due to errors by applicant for search warrant.
Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB [2026] UKSC 4 – S 3(4) TMA - Point 5 of PART III of Annex VII MAPR – FICR – MCAD. - prohibited registration of trade mark.
- regulation of dairy terms such as “milk” in marketing of agricultural products.
1) use of term “milk” in respect of oat-based food or drink is prohibited.
- prohibition bites where designation used for relevant product; not necessary that used as name of the product.
2) designation of term “milk” in relation to oat-based food or drink only permitted on basis that used to describe a “characteristic quality of the product” such as “milk free” where this is done “clearly”.
Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2025] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – S 19 PACE – s 1 DDA. - fact that possession of an item is an offence does not prevent it being taken into possession of officer by way of lawful seizure.
- fact that s 1 DDA provides no one may have prohibited dog in their possession, and only specifies seizure as an exception when carried out under DDA power, does not prevent police constable exercising power of seizure under s 19 PACE.
- s 1 DDA concerned with defining an offence whereas s 19 PACE concerned with investigating an offence.
- clear words would have been required in DDA to expressly exclude powers of seizure under PACE.
Latest Articles
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
Amending the Defendant’s Name Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.
What's popular
R (Higginshaw Abattoir Limited and Anor) v Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court and Food Standards Agency [2022] EWHC 378 (Admin) – Regs 9 and 19 FSHER - Regulation (EC) 853/2004 – r 7.3 CrimPR – s 123 MCA - article 47 CFREU. 1) taking of nontechnical or specialist decision not always carry statutory right of appeal on merits.
- provision for full merits appeal may not, in circumstances of particular case, be necessary.
- requirement of article 47 CFREU for “effective remedy” may be satisfied by availability of judicial review.
2)(a) information not bad for duplicity where refers to separate offences so long as (tolerably) clear which offence being charged.
- information must be read as a whole.
2)(b) where body of information alleges single offence but erroneously purports offence to be contrary to two statutory provisions, each creating a separate offence, information can be amended under s 123 MCA if no injustice.
2)(c) informations must disclose, as they did, an offence in law.
2)(d) where information clearly addressed to specific D, and clear that reference to a second D was in error, it could be readily amended without causing injustice.
3)(a) remedial action notice (“RAN”) under FSHER must specify, as it did, action to be taken to remedy breach.
3)(b) Whether repeated failures to comply with requirements of Regulation 853/2004 are described in RAN as continuing breach or series of separate breaches, effect the same and RAN valid.
3)(c) no compelling reason to interpret “process” in FSHER as referrable only to processed food.
R (GSX) v Southwark Crown Court and Ors [2026] EWHC 538 (Admin) – Ss 8, 9 and 15(6)(b) PACE - s 59(6) and (7) CJPA. 1) s 8(1)(d) PACE prohibits s 8 warrant where reasonable grounds for believing items sought subject to legal professional privilege or are business material held in confidence.
- warrant application defective when not give required information.
- warrant application flawed when includes SIF giving potential impression subject involved in other wrongdoing.
2) court to exercise restraint in preventing recourse to s 59 CJPA jurisdiction (to retain unlawfully seized material).
- not in public interest for person to be better protected from prosecution due to errors by applicant for search warrant.
Tesco Stores Limited v City of London Corporation [2010] EWHC 2920 (Admin) – S 21 FSA – reg 11 FHER. 1) taking all reasonable precautions and all due diligence requires an effective system to avoid the commission of an offence and that it is observed and followed.
2) it is for the High Court, in considering a case stated, to decide if the findings of fact of the trial court involved an error of law, and not to engage in any primary finding of fact of its own.
3) the fact that justices erroneously found certain failings in D’s due diligence system does not vitiate their overall finding of lack of diligence when they correctly found other failings.
Rubin v DPP [1990] 2 QB 80. - information should be laid by named person.
- information not invalid if authority to prosecute and prosecutor easily ascertained.