R v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1988 |
| Year | 1988 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Police - Powers - Special procedure material - Access by police to bank accounts - Bank official told identity of charges and information sought - Notices failing to specify particulars - Order for production of material - Whether notices and order valid -
The police were investigating offences of fraud which they suspected had been committed by the applicant and others. A police officer visited the head office of a bank in Manchester and spoke to the Chief Inspector and Assistant General Manager, S., and told him that he suspected that a conspiracy to obtain by deception had been committed against the bank in relation to dealings of companies controlled by the applicant and that he wished to inspect accounts and other documents relating to the applicant and named companies. S. confirmed that the bank would not allow him to see accounts without the consent of the account holders. The police officer told S. that the police would apply for an order under section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984F1 but that as they suspected a member of the bank's staff might also be involved, neither the names of the account holders nor the offences suspected would be specified in the notice. He informed S. that the bank could oppose the application by attending the hearing and that was re-iterated in the notice served pursuant to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Act.
On 12 March the Recorder of Manchester made an order addressed to the bank giving the police access to certain special procedure material, namely ledger accounts, accounting documents, correspondence, minutes and business records relating to the applicant. The bank complied with the order.
On the applicant applying for judicial review seeking a declaration that the order was invalidly made by virtue of the fact that no proper notice of intention to apply for it was given to the bank:—
Held, dismissing the application, that the safeguard provisions for obtaining special procedure material contained in Schedule 1 to the Act were essentially intended for the protection of the person or body against whom the order was sought and not for the suspect, whose protection lay in the fact that a circuit judge had to be satisfied that the access conditions had been made out before making the order; that although it was preferable for the identity of the documents sought and the alleged offence being investigated to be set out in either the notice under section 9 of the Act or in a separate document delivered before or at the time of the notice, it was sufficient if that information was conveyed orally to the person affected and that, accordingly, the order was valid (post, pp. 709B–C, D–E, 716H–717A, F–H, 718A, G, 719D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Glidewell L.J.:
Reg. v. Central Criminal Court, Ex parte Adegbesan [
Reg. v. Central Criminal Court, Ex parte Carr (unreported), 26 February 1987,
Reg. v. Leicester Crown Court, Ex parte Director of Public PRosecutions [
Russian Commercial & Industrial Bank v. British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd. [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Eastham v. Newcastle United Football Club Ltd. [
Johnco Nominees Pty. Ltd. v. Albury-Wodonga (New South Wales) Corporation [
Quietlynn Ltd. v. Plymouth City Council [
Reg. v. Grossman (
Reg. v. Inner London Crown Court, Ex parte Baines & Baines [
Tournier v. National Provincial & Union Bank of England [
White (Marion) v. Francis [
APPLICATION for judicial review.
By a notice of motion dated 9 July 1987, the applicant, Kevin Taylor, sought an order of certiorari to quash an order made at the Crown Court at Manchester on 12 March 1986 by the Recorder of Manchester, Judge Prestt Q.C., under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 upon the application of Detective Inspector Stephenson requesting the Co-operative Bank Plc. to produce certain special procedure material to the police. He also sought a declaration that the order was invalid by virtue of the fact that no proper notice of intention to apply for it was given to the bank.
The grounds on which relief was sought were (1) that the notice given to the bank of the intention to make the application under section 9 of the Act of 1984 by D.I. Stephenson was invalid and (2) that in making the application D.I. Stephenson failed to disclose to Judge Prestt certain correspondence.
Similar orders were also made in respect of the First Interstate Bank, Barclays Bank Plc., Trustee Savings Bank Plc., Royal Bank of Scotland Plc. and American Express Europe Ltd. However, no relief was sought in respect of those orders.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Glidewell L.J.
Anthony Scrivener Q.C. and Robin de Wilde for the applicant.
Andrew Collins Q.C. and Jeremy Gompertz for the Greater Manchester Police.
Paul Walker for the Co-operative Bank.
Michael Malone for the First Interstate Bank.
John Jarvis for Barclays Bank, Trustee Savings Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and American Express Europe Ltd.
GLIDEWELL L.J. On 12 March 1986, the Recorder of Manchester, Judge Prestt Q.C., on the application of Detective Inspector Stephenson of the Greater Manchester Police, made a series of orders addressed to various banks requiring them under the provisions of section 9 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to give the police access to certain special procedure material within the meaning of the Act, namely ledger accounts, accounting documents, correspondence, minutes, and business records relating to Kevin Taylor, and four named companies, in some of which Mr. Taylor had an interest.
Mr. Taylor now seeks an order of certiorari to quash one of the orders made. The present proceedings relate to the order made against the Co-operative Bank Plc. It is said that this is in the nature of a test case. If the application is granted it is intended to pursue similar applications, in respect of which leave has been granted, in relation to all the other banks against whom orders were made.
The relief now sought has been curtailed from that which was set out in the notice of motion and the original application. What is now sought is either an order of certiorari to quash the order of the recorder or a declaration that the order was invalidly made by virtue of the fact that no proper notice of the intention to apply for it was given to the Co-operative Bank by D.I. Stephenson.
At the hearing on 12 March 1986, the bank did not appear, nor did it object to the making of the order. Once the order was made the bank was, of course, relieved of its obligation of confidentiality to its client. We have been informed, but it does not matter for this purpose, that Mr. Taylor was not directly a client. One of the named companies had an account with the Co-operative Bank and Mr. Taylor was a guarantor of that account.
The bank complied with the order. The police inspected the documents to which they wished to have access and took and retained copies of some of them.
Although there have been previous authorities in which the provisions under which this order was made have been considered, it is necessary again to consider the provisions of the Act. By section 9(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:
“A constable may obtain access to excluded material or special procedure material for the purposes of a criminal investigation by making an application under Schedule 1 below and in accordance with that Schedule.”
Section 14 defines “special procedure material.” Subsection (2) provides:
“this subsection applies to material, other than items subject to legal privilege and excluded material, in the possession of a person who — (a) acquired or created it in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office; and (b) holds it subject — (i) to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence …”
It is agreed on all sides that the documents to which the police wished and were given access as a result of the making of the order by the recorder were “special procedure material” within the meaning of that subsection. Clearly it was created in the course of the bank's trade or business, and even more clearly the bank held it subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence.
The procedure for the making of an order is set out in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1984:
“1. If on an application made by a constable a circuit judge is satisfied that one or other of the sets of access conditions is fulfilled, he may make an order under paragraph 4 below. 2. The first set of access conditions is fulfilled if — (a) there are reasonable grounds for believing — (i) that a serious arrestable offence has been committed; (ii) that there is material which consists of special procedure material or includes special procedure material and does not also include excluded material on premises specified in the application; (iii) that the material is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation in connection with which the application is made; and (iv) that the material is likely to be relevant evidence; (b) other methods of obtaining the material — (i) have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclays Bank Plc (trading as Barclaycard) v Taylor
...point was raised by way of judicial review in a different case in which Mr. Taylor was involved and was rejected (see The Queen v. Manchester Crown Court Ex parte Taylor (1988) 1 W.L.R. 705). Suffice it to say that I agree with and follow that decision. Paragraphs 7 and 8 read together requ......
-
R v Chelmsford Crown Court, ex parte Chief Constable of Essex
...since the point was not raised. An example of that is R. v. Leicester Crown Court, Ex parte DPP (1987) 1 WLR 1371. In the R. v. Manchester Crown Court, Ex parte Taylor (1988) 1 WLR 705 the point was also not raised, but in that case relief was refused on other grounds. 66 Mr Walker also acc......
-
R v City of London Magistrates, ex parte Asif
...UNK(1981) 73 Cr App R 302 R v IR Commrs, ex parte Rossminster Ltd ELR[1980] AC 952 R v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte Taylor WLR[1988] 1 WLR 705 R v Marlborough Street Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte SimpsonUNK(1980) 70 Cr App R 290 Value added tax - Access orders - Magistrates - Orders ......
-
Bowview Overseas Ltd v Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee Trust (BVI) Ltd
...applicant and his wife have a mutuality of interest in the application and thus he had no standing. 114 In a similar case, R v Manchester Crown Court ex p. Taylor 31, the applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash the order of the Recorder which required various banks to give the poli......