Police search warrants in the uk

There are numerous other procedural rules that must be followed regarding both the application and the conduct of the search.

These rules are important, get it wrong and the search and the warrant may be quashed or the property returned because the proper procedure was not adhered to. If that happens that may be the end of any chance of the prosecution using the product of the searches in any subsequent prosecution.

Warrants were applied for, issued and the searches undertaken. The warrants only provided details of the relevant addresses in schedules to the warrant that were then not left at the searched premises, in contravention of the rules. Thus, though the officers were lawfully at the premises, the seizure of computers and documents etc was rendered unlawful.

SOCA agreed to pay damages and certain legal costs. But that was not the end of it because when the suspect asked for the return of his property he was told that in fact SOCA were re-seizing the items under powers in PACE. The High Court held that unlawful seizure could not be rendered lawful by subsequent re-seizure. In the Cummins case SOCA, in their investigation of a money-laundering allegation, had again improperly seized material and were forced to return it. This was possible because of the particular offence being investigated. The Court found there was no reason why SOCA should be in any worse position than if the warrant had never been sought or why those the subject of an unlawful warrant should somehow be better off.

This recent case received a lot of publicity — it was in fact two joined Judicial Review actions that resulted in search warrants being quashed and the Court heavily criticizing the SFO. The actions concerned two British brothers, Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, who were very wealthy, well known businessmen. The facts of the case deserve some consideration. The brothers had banked with the Icelandic bank — Kaupthing.

Stop and question: police powers

That bank had provided the brothers substantial loans for various business ventures since at least In October the Kaupthing bank collapsed as part of the major world-wide banking crisis. A committee was set up by those concerned with ensuring the return of as much of the debt owed to the bank as possible.

The committee got their report in December This is something we see often in cases that start off with a civil aspect but develop into fraud allegations.

The police are sent material, created by others, to demonstrate the guilt of their potential civil opponents. So, for example, just before the collapse of Kaupthing large sums were transferred to a Luxembourg account. This was relied upon by GT as a possible attempt to dishonestly remove funds from those entitled to them. The fact was however that there were other plausible innocent explanations for this transaction that the Old Bailey Judge had not been made aware of. This was because the SFO had simply not investigated those possibilities because it relied so heavily on the GT report.

It has long been the case that the courts must control the invasion of privacy that is involved when the State seeks to search the premises of an individual or a company. All the material relating to the grant of a warrant must be provided to the Judge. The case of the Texan cricket billionaire was a case in point when Hughes LJ said in re Standford [] 1 WLR , , that in presenting the case the advocate must;.

The Judge must be personally satisfied that there are proper grounds for suspicion and the application should never be a rubber-stamping exercise. In the Tchenguiz case the SFO had manifestly failed in this duty. Once the suspect has sight of the Information presented to the judge there is then the opportunity to go through it to see if the Judge has had everything and has been painted a fair and accurate picture — or whether the Crown have just picked out their favourite bits. Throughout the judgment there is a theme of comparing and contrasting how the civil courts would have dealt with the situation.

For example, in civil applications for search warrants the applicant must produce all the material which supports the contentions set out in the application. That is not the practice in criminal cases. The law needs to be updated to take account of technological advances and how these have changed the practical realities of searching for, and dealing with, investigatory evidence.

As a result of the uncertainties of the current legal framework, some commentators regard the legal safeguards for businesses and individuals to be inadequate, causing disproportionate costs and delays for all parties, and disruption to sometimes collapses of investigations. Similarly, investigating authorities are required to return materials that are legally privileged.

In , the Trading Standards Authority the Authority obtained a warrant to search and seize computer equipment against the Claimants to investigate allegations that they had sold utilities gas, electricity, and telephone lines to consumers fraudulently. More than million documents and , audio recordings of telephone conversations were seized for the Authority by Lancashire Constabulary and copied, with the physical devices then returned. One year later, the Claimants applied to the Crown Court for the return of property falling outside the scope of the search warrant. The Authority agreed to return hard copy documents but refused to return electronic data, saying it would take too much time and resource.

The High Court agreed with the Authority, because it would require diverting resources away from the investigation, and the Claimants still retained their data so their business operations had not been disrupted. This case illustrates a number of issues with the current legal regime, of which businesses should be broadly aware.

First, it provides one example of legislation drafted in a different technological era. Indeed, it is only due to the recent development of data analytics tools and sophisticated search function technology that investigators are able to manage and make use of such vast quantities of data. The requirement is meant to maintain privacy and property rights and to minimise the disruption caused to investigated businesses and individuals. However, the majority of the time, data is copied rather than seized and thus is not too disruptive to business operations.

• High court dismisses search warrants on Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz!
• Police powers to stop and search: your rights?
• wiliam jefferson coffey nc death certificate.
• get backgrounds for your cell phone.

On the other hand, and as Philip Marshall QC argued on behalf of the Claimants, search warrants can be a very substantial and damaging intrusion into private law business rights. In particular, amongst the data seized there may be legally privileged material, and legal privilege is — in the UK and other jurisdictions — a fundamental human right. Arguably, therefore, privileged material must in all circumstances be identified, segregated, and returned or destroyed.

These are, no doubt, all key considerations that will need to be balanced by the Law Commission, as CFOs and senior management need to know where they stand. Overall, the decision reflects the current state of the rules on search warrants: outdated and uncertain. An application has been made for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis that it raises a point of general public importance.

Police made 'appalling' errors in using internet data to target suspects

While this would provide greater clarity on the points raised in this case, the Supreme Court would only be able to decide the points relevant to this appeal on the basis of the current legislation. The broader task of consolidating, clarifying, and modernising UK search warrant laws will fall to the Law Commission and Parliament. By Jay Ashar. Finance Process What are the different financial models?