R (on the application of Matthew Goode) v The Crown Court at Nottingham (1st Defendant) Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (2nd Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Pitchford,Mr Justice Burnett |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1889/2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Pitchford and Mr Justice Burnett
Case No: CO/1889/2013
Alun Jones QC (instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors Limited) for the Claimant
The Crown Court at Nottingham was not represented
Samantha Leek QC and Samuel Skinner (instructed by East Midlands Police Legal Services) for the 2 nd Defendant
Hearing date: 21 May 2013
Approved Judgment
The issue
This is a challenge by the claimant to the validity of two search warrants issued by the Nottingham Crown Court on 25 May 201The claimant seeks an order quashing the warrants and/or a declaration that the entries, searches and seizures made on 25 May 2011 were unlawful; the return of all property seized and copies; and damages. Although, as pleaded, the claimant sought a declaration that his subsequent exclusion from police stations in Nottinghamshire was unlawful, that aspect of the claim is no longer pursued. The claim is before this court in consequence of an order made by Flaux J on 11 February 2013 at Nottingham Crown Court when, in circumstances which I shall describe later in this judgment, he set a timetable for the issue of a claim for judicial review, service of an acknowledgement of service and the exchange and delivery of evidence and skeleton arguments. This matter is listed as a rolled up hearing for a decision upon the application for permission with the substantive hearing to follow should permission be granted.
The factual background to the application
The claimant is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, and an Accredited Representative for police stations and a panel A member of the Very High Costs Cases panel. He was employed by a firm of Nottingham Solicitors, Messrs Bhatia Best, for a period of some 18 years until in early 2010 he joined the firm of Challinors practising in the west and east Midlands.
On 13 May 2011 Detective Inspector ("DI") David Kennedy of the Nottinghamshire Police made an ex-parte application to His Honour Judge ("HHJ") Teare at Nottingham Crown Court for a warrant to search the home address of the claimant and one of the practice addresses of his employers, Challinors. A search was required to retrieve evidence which it was believed would support a reasonable belief that the claimant had participated in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Colin Gunn and Michael O'Brien. Those warrants were issued in terms to which I refer below at paragraphs 16 and 17. Both warrants were executed on 25 May 2011.
No challenge was made to the warrants or the searches which followed at the time when the searches took place. The first intimation of a complaint was on 31 May 2012 when Kaim Todner Solicitors Limited ("Kaim Todner"), for the claimant, wrote to the Nottinghamshire Force solicitor to complain that a substantial quantity of his property had been retained in consequence of the seizure. The return of the claimant's property was demanded within a period of 14 days, failing which the Force was invited to respond to a request for information as to the following matters:
" (1) On what basis was the warrant issued …
(2) A written note or transcript of the oral hearing before Judge Teare and a record of his reasons for granting the warrant.
(3) A complete record of property seized from Mr Goode's house.
(4) The report made by any independent counsel who has studied or sifted Mr Goode's property.
(5) …
(6) The outcome of the examination of the property conducted pursuant to the service of section 50 and 51 notice[s].
(7) An explanation as to why Mr Goode's property is still retained, and how long its continued retention will be required …
(8) An explanation as to why the property is retained in counsel's chambers and what security arrangements protect that property.
(9) An explanation as to why Mr Goode's electronic equipment such as phones and computers have not been "downloaded and mirrored" allowing the return of such hardware as promised by DC Johnson on 25 May 2011 who explained that this was a simple process and the actual hardware would be returned within a few days."
On 7 June 2012 the East Midlands Legal Services Unit sent a holding reply saying that they would make enquiries and respond shortly. In the meantime, on 12 June 2012 the claimant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. On 15 June Kaim Todner wrote to complain that an arrest at the claimant's home address without prior arrangement had been unnecessary. The claimant was released after examination by a force medical examiner and bailed to attend Lincoln police station on 21 June. The date for surrender was extended to 5 July on which date the claimant was interviewed under caution at Lincoln. He was further bailed to 1 November 2012. A discussion took place at Lincoln police station between Kaim Todner and the police as to the possible return of the claimant's property.
On 18 July the claimant attended a police station in Nottinghamshire and was refused access to a client. He was assured that there was no blanket ban in force. On 24 July he was again refused access to a client in a police station and on 25 July Kaim Todner wrote in protest. On the same day the Head of Legal Services at the East Midlands Legal Services Unit wrote to Kaim Todner repeating the assertion that a decision would be required by the police inspector responsible for any station visited by the claimant. On 27 July Mr Sutherland wrote with a more detailed explanation which it is unnecessary to repeat. In short, an investigation was continuing into a suspected attempt by the claimant, Gunn and O'Brien to pervert the course of justice.
On 17 August the Legal Services Unit responded to Kaim Todner's request for the return of property. It was asserted that DC Johnson (it may be that Mr Johnson had been, by then, promoted to sergeant) had not agreed to the return of property but that he would review the property held and return it if possible. It was asserted that examination of the material was continuing. On 20 September 2012 a number of items were released for collection, comprising computers, mobile telephones and related equipment.
On 21 September 2012 Kaim Todner wrote to the Crown Court at Nottingham requesting information about the application for a warrant to search the claimant's home. On 3 October 2012 counsel who attended the search on 25 May 2012, Ms Tracy Stobart, wrote a full note for Kaim Todner setting out her role and the whereabouts and status of items which came into her possession at the time of the search. On 23 October 2012 Kaim Todner gave notice to Nottingham Crown Court of their intention to apply for an order under section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the return of the claimant's property, and a related application for the provision of information. A directions hearing attended by counsel took place in HHJ Teare's chambers on 29 November 2012. Judge Teare indicated that he would recuse himself from hearing the application. The application for a section 59 order was listed before Flaux J, one of the presiding judges of the Midland Circuit, on 11 February 2012. On that date Mr Alun Jones QC appeared for the claimant and Mr Skinner represented the Chief Constable. In breach of the directions given by Judge Teare the Chief Constable had failed to submit a skeleton argument or evidence in response to the application. However, Mr Jones addressed the judge on the question whether the applications were properly before the Crown Court. The underlying ground for the application was that the warrant was invalid and should be, Mr Jones submitted, the subject of a claim for judicial review. It was the judge's opinion that a challenge to the validity of the warrant was normally a matter to be considered in the Administrative Court. He adjourned the matter to enable to the claimant to submit a claim for judicial review and, as I have said, set a timetable.
On 2 May 2013 the claimant was charged with an offence contrary to section 40D(1)(b) and (5) Prison Act 1952 that on 22 May 2011, without authorisation, he caused a transmission to be made from inside Her Majesty's Prison, Cardiff (see paragraph 14 below). Having regard to the contents of this judgment, it is important to emphasise that the claimant was notified under section 37B(5) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that he was released without charge in respect of the offence of conspiring to pervert the course of justice on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
The application for the warrants
DI Kennedy has made a witness statement on behalf of the Chief Constable in response to the claim for judicial review. We are informed that DI Kennedy appeared at Nottingham Crown Court on 13 May 2011 with signed copies of applications for search warrants to be executed at the claimant's home address and at one of the offices of his employers, Challinors. Supplied with each application was a signed information to which was attached an identical "Summary of evidence/intelligence" (the "Summary"). The documents were submitted some 30 minutes to one hour before DI Kennedy appeared in the judge's court, sitting in chambers, to make the applications. The signed originals of these documents, which I am satisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Mohammad Mumtaz Chaudhary) v (1) Bristol Crown Court (1st Defendant) (2) HMRC (2nd Defendant)
...a seizure by reason of a breach of section 15 or 16, it was necessary for Mr Jones to address R (Goode) v Nottingham Crown Court [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin), a case in which this court gave guidance in respect of applications under section 59 of the 2011 Act. His principal submission in this r......
-
Robin Lees and Others v Solihull Magistrates' Court (1st Defendant) The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs (2nd Defendant)
...forum for a challenge to the validity of a warrant is in judicial review proceedings. See R (Goode) v The Crown Court at Nottingham [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin) at paragraphs 50–52. The legality of the warrant cannot be challenged in the Crown Court, and that court's powers do not extend to the......
-
R (on the application of Mills) v Sussex Police
...The Crown Court at Southwark [2014] EWHC 840 (Admin) para. 89 and R (on the application of Goode) v The Crown Court at Nottingham [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin) para.38; and Zinga v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2357 paras.31–32. If this is indeed the appropriate legal test, then since I cannot say that ......
-
R Craig Paolo v City of London Magistrates Court The Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Interested Party)
...on his case. Mr Jarvis readily conceded the point. 23 Mr Jarvis then invoked the decision of this court in R (on the application of Matthew Goode) v Nottingham Crown Court [2013] EWHC 1726 (Admin). The delay in that case was of the order of 21 months. It too was a challenge to the validity......