R (Ahmed) v York Magistrates’ Court and City of York Council [2012] EWHC 3636 (Admin) – Regs 23 and 24 BPMMR (regs 21 and 22 CPUTR) – ss 15 and 16 PACE.
1) officer of BPMMR enforcement authority was a “constable” for the purposes of the safeguard provisions of ss 15 and 16 PACE which therefore apply to a warrant under reg 24 BPMMR (and reg 22 CPUTR).
2) a warrant to search and seize is a serious infringement of liberty; it is insufficient for the applicant to say in the information that he believes the grounds are made out as the court itself must be so satisfied.
3) reg 24 is not dependent or subordinate to reg 23, consequently the power to enter premises under a reg 24 warrant applies to “any premises” and includes premises used only as a dwelling.
4) the exception to the power of entry and search under reg 23 applies only if the premises are in fact ‘used only as a dwelling’.
- not disclosing that there are grounds for believing that premises are being used for non-residential purposes is not a material non-disclosure.
5) it is not the case that the magistrate must be satisfied as to the statutory requirements for a warrant under reg 24 by reference only to the contents of the information.
6) whereas it may be good practice for a proper note to be taken of the evidence given in support of an information under reg 24, insofar as that is not already in writing, that is not a mandatory requirement of the scheme.
7) the test for the warrant was whether the magistrate, not the applicant, was satisfied there were reasonable grounds (see also point 2).
8) reg 24(2) requires the magistrate to be satisfied that inspection of the goods or documents on the premises “is likely” to disclose evidence of a breach of the BPMMR not that it “may” do so.
9) where it is obvious that notice of entry would have alerted those who occupy the premises so as to defeat the object of the warrant it was an unnecessary formally to state that in the application or warrant.
10) a warrant under reg 24 included a power to seize as well as to enter and search.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R (Vuciterni and Alsat UK Ltd) v Brent Magistrates’ Court and Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service [2012] EWCA 2140 (Admin) - Regs 12, 22 and para 9, sch 1 CPUTR – s 297A CDPA – s 50 CJPA.
1) not necessarily unlawful for proceedings to be indemnified by private party, but may be concern if prosecution only brought at behest of and funded by powerful, wealthy corporation. 2) foreign decoder devices used outside permitted geographical area were not “unauthorised decoders” within s 297A CDPA. 3) when applying for a warrant, the magistrate should be alerted to potential significant doubts as to the existence of an offence. 4) incriminating evidence found in a search cannot of itself override deficiencies in the information supplied to the magistrate in obtaining the warrant. - fact that a product cannot be legally used does not necessarily mean it cannot be legally sold. 5) meaning of “legally be sold”. - “very debatable” whether the word “legally” by reference to what is “sold”, in para 9 sch 1 CPUTR, extends to civil wrongdoing. - in applying for a warrant the magistrate should have been told that the applicant was relying on something other than criminality in asserting offending under para 9. 6) a warrant is a most extreme and invasive order, to be granted with great caution and dependent on appropriate full and accurate disclosure by the applicant. 7) execution of warrant at 7.00 am at family home not necessarily unreasonable. 8) the powers to enter (and inspect) under a reg 22 CPUTR warrant include a power to search. 9) the power to enter premises under a reg 22 CPUTR warrant includes premises used only as a dwelling. 10) no requirement that, before searching or seizing, occupier of premises is asked to produce documents for copying. 11) fact that warrant headed “Warrant to Enter” did not, when read as a whole and when expressed to be under reg 22 CPUTR, preclude power to search.