Redknapp v Commissioner of the City of London Police and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Latham,Mr Justice Underhill |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/0732/2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 23 May 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Latham
Mr Justice Underhill
Case No: CO/0732/2008
Alun Jones QC and Rupert Bowers (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) for the Claimants
Tim Owen QC and Alex Bailin (instructed by City of London Corporation) for the First Defendant
Hearing dates: 2 nd May 2008
The first claimant is the manager of Portsmouth City Football Club “the Club”; and the second claimant is his wife. In 2006, the first defendant began investigating suspected conspiracy to defraud, false accounting and money laundering offences surrounding the transfer activity of professional football players at the Club and elsewhere. It was suspected that the first claimant as manager of the Club, together with the Managing Director Peter Storrie, and the Club's then owner and Chairman Milan Mandaric may have conspired together to make disguised payments to a player, Andy Faye, using the agent William McKay to receive payments offshore. These enquiries have been stimulated by information obtained from the French authorities.
In pursuance of these enquiries, the first defendant was granted Production Orders pursuant to section 345 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA”) by Her Honour Judge Goddard Q.C. sitting at the Central Criminal Court. These orders were directed essentially at the Club, and two other football clubs, Glasgow Rangers and Newcastle United, requiring them to supply documents in respect of a number of named transfers.
On 11 th July 2007, unsatisfied by the material that had been obtained, and suspicious that William McKay had been “tipped off” as to the nature of the police investigations, the first defendant made a further application to Her Honour Judge Goddard Q.C. at the Central Criminal Court for warrants on this occasion under section 9 and schedule 1 paragraph 12 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”). The terms of these warrants were such as to allow searches of the business premises of the same clubs with a view to obtaining access, inter alia, to excluded material or special procedure material within the meaning of PACE. These warrants were executed. Thereafter in strongly worded correspondence, solicitors acting for the first claimant complained about the way the search had been carried out at the Club. Amongst other things files containing correspondence between solicitors and the Club and the first claimant were taken. We are not directly concerned with any dispute that might arise out of the execution of that warrant. The correspondence does make it clear thereafter that the first claimant was stating that he was prepared to co-operate with the police, but was anxious that every effort should be taken to ensure that publicity, which had already taken place in relation to this enquiry, should be avoided or at least kept to the minimum. Among the correspondence was a fax from Detective Inspector Manley the officer in charge of the enquiry to a solicitor called Mr Fraser then acting for the first claimant, thanking him for his co-operation and for the assistance given by the Club following the execution of the search warrant. This fax is dated the 2 nd August 2007.
From the material that we have, which includes extracts from D.I. Manley's “Decision Log”, the police considered that they had enough information to proceed with the investigation to the extent of requiring searches of the home addresses of some of those who were considered to be involved, and at the same time as the execution of the search warrants, their arrest for the purposes of interview. To some extent these decisions would appear to have been informed by the fact that the police suspected there to have been contact between the relevant individuals which had inhibited the police from obtaining all the information that they wished. It was in these circumstances that the warrant in relation to the first claimant's house was obtained, and his arrest was effected about which the claimants make complaint in these proceedings. I propose to deal with the warrant and the arrest separately.
The Warrant
The warrant in question was granted on the 19 th November 2007 by a Justice of the Peace of the City of London Magistrates Court under section 8 of PACE. It was granted on an application made by Detective Constable Driscoll under section 8 of PACE. The schedule to the application and the warrant set out eight premises, including the claimants' property, and/or premises occupied by Milan Manderic who had at one time as I have said, been the owner and Chairman of the Club. The warrant was executed at 06.00 hours on the 29 th November 2007 to coincide with the execution of the warrants at the other addresses, and the arrest of a number of persons. The intention was that the first claimant should be arrested at that stage; but he was in Germany. As a consequence when the officers entered the claimant's home, only the second claimant was present. The search was witnessed by a number of reporters from the Sun newspaper; and the resultant publicity was extensive and damaging.
The claimants said that not only was the warrant defective, and the search therefore unlawful, but that the circumstances in which the warrant was executed, and the resulting publicity were also matters about which they could properly complain, in particular on the grounds that the evidence suggests that The Sun newspaper obtained advance information about the intention of executing the warrant from the investigating officers.
So far as the validity of the warrant is concerned, the claimants put forward five grounds, each of which, it is submitted, renders the issue of the warrant unlawful. First, the Justice of the Peace had no power to grant a warrant to search for the material specified in it. Second, none of the statutory pre conditions in section 8(1)(e) and (3) of PACE were satisfied. Third, the Justice of the Peace had no power to grant a warrant which was both a “specific premises warrant” and an “all premises warrant”. Fourth, the warrant was drawn too widely. Fifth, it purports to authorise an entry and search of premises in Scotland, one of the premises identified in the schedule to which I have already referred.
The relevant provisions of PACE are as follows:
“8.- Power of Justice of the Peace to authorise entry and search of premises.
(1) if on an application made by a constable a Justice of the Peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing –
(a) that an indictable offence has been committed; and
(b) that there is material on premises mentioned in sub section (1A) below which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence; and
(c) that the material is likely to be relevant; and
(d) that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material; and
(e) that any of the conditions specified in sub section (3) below applies in relation to each set of premises specified in the application,
he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises
(1A) The premises referred to in subsection (1) (b) above are-
(a) one or more sets of premises specified in the application I in which case the application is for a “specific premises warrant”); or
(b) any premises occupied or controlled by a person specified in the application, including such sets of premises as are so specified (in which case the application is for an “all premises warrant”).
(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(e) above are-
(a) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises;
(b) that it is practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant entry to the premises but it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the evidence;
(c) that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
(d) that the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them.
…”
Section 9 enables a constable to obtain access to excluded material, as defined in section 11, and special procedure material as defined in section 14. The procedure is set out in schedule 1 to the Act and requires an application to a circuit judge. These were the provisions under which the warrants were granted in July 2007.
Section 15 (1) sets out the procedure to be followed by constables when making applications for warrants. By subsection (1) an entry on or search of premises under a warrant is unlawful unless it complies with the provisions of section 15, and section 16, which sets out the procedures which have to be followed when a warrant is executed. So far as the obtaining of the warrant is concerned, the constable must state the ground on which he makes the application, the enactment under which the warrant would be issued, he must identify the articles sought, and the application must be supported by information in writing. Any constable making an application is required to answer on oath any questions that may be raised in the ex parte hearing. The warrant must specify each set of premises to be searched.
By section 16 (4)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Faisaltex Ltd and Others) v Crown Court at Preston, Chief Constable of Lancashire and HM Revenue and Customs [Administrative Court]
... ... Their accountant was H. The police and HMRC investigated P in relation to ... , 272, and as Latham LJ put it in R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of City of London Police [2008] ... registered office for Welsford Financial, another British Virgin Islands company, linked to an ... ...
-
R (Faisaltex Ltd) v Preston Crown Court
...Magistrates' Court, ex parte Primlaks Holdings Co. (Panama) Inc., [1990] 1 QB 261, 272, and as Latham LJ put it in R (Redknapp) v. Commissioner of City of London Police [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin): “The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be treated as a formality. It authorises the inv......
-
Amrick Cheema and Others v Nottingham and Newark Magistrates Court and Another
...must not assume, in the absence of any record, that anything was added to supplement the written Information (see Latham LJ in Redknapp v City of London Police [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin) at paragraph 15) and in these circumstances I do not consider that the position can be rescued by referenc......
-
Burgin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...he did" (per Kennedy LJ at Page 8). 27 Reliance is placed on dicta of Latham LJ sitting in the Divisional Court in R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2009] 1WLR 2091 at paras 13 and 16 that where a magistrate or judge considering an application for a search warrant re......
-
Making an arrest in order to activate PACE entry and search powers: The Law Commission and a missed opportunity for clarification
...of PACE.21. See s 15(4) of PACE.22. See s 16(5)(c) of PACE.23. See, for example, Redknapp v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] 1 WLR 2091; and Bhatti v CroydonMagistrates’ Court [2011] 1 WLR 948.24. See, for example, the remarks of Sir James Munby P in In re X (A Child) (Jurisd......
-
The constitutional invalidity of warrantless drugs searches in South Africa
...(7) BCLR 788 (CC) at [19].35. [2013] ZACC 38; 2014 (1) SA 442 (CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 38 (CC) at [69].36. [1972] 2 QB 512 at 519.37. [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin).Parpworth 38. [1980] 1 All ER 80 at 82.39. [2016] ZACC 21 at [30].40. See Brigham City vStuart 547 US 398, 403 (2006).41. See, for exampl......
-
Table of Cases, Volume 81, 2008, 2009
...264R (S & Marper) v South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196 83Redknapp and Another v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Another[2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin), 23 March 2008, QBD 171–174Regina v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, 18 June 2008, HL 262–265Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 84Williams and......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...them at least theappearance of bias.DWUnlawful Search WarrantsRedknapp and Another v Metropolitan Police Commissionerand Another [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin)Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court23 May 2008This application for judicial review challenged the issue andexecution of a search warr......