Terence William Norman v Yoni Adler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Kerr |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3029 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/353/2021 |
[2021] EWHC 3029 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Kerr
CO/353/2021
Mr Anthony Metzer QC and Ms Hannah Hinton (instructed by Paul Martin & Co Solicitors) for the Claimants
Mr Sam Thomas (instructed by Pennington Manches Cooper LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 28 October 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date and time for hand down is 10.30am on Friday, 12 November 2021.
Introduction
The claimants, a married couple, ask the court to set aside an order made on the papers by Sir Ross Cranston on 21 September 2021. He refused the claimants' application for permission to bring contempt proceedings against the defendant police officers arising from their part in obtaining a warrant on 9 April 2019 at Chelmsford Crown Court.
The warrant was issued by His Honour Judge Gratwicke, Honorary Recorder of Chelmsford, on the evidence of the second defendant, acting under the direction of the first defendant. The warrant authorised Essex police to search the claimants' home in Essex and certain nearby office premises, and to seize certain property found there.
The defendants and other officers suspected the claimants of involvement in money laundering. However, this suspicion has turned out to be wrong. After the warrant was executed on 16 April 2019, when the claimants (and their son) were arrested, no further action was taken and the property seized was eventually returned. The claimants are, and remain, of good character.
The Chief Constable of Essex Police has conceded in judicial review proceedings that the warrant should be quashed and all seized property returned. Supperstone J made an order on 4 February 2020 giving effect to that concession. He also gave directions for payment of £3,500 agreed damages to the claimants' son and granted permission for the judicial review to continue as a claim for review of the arrests of the present claimants.
Sir Ross Cranston reasoned that the claimants could not make a strong prima facie case that statements made to the Crown Court to obtain the warrants were deliberately intended to mislead the judge and known by the makers to be false. Material nondisclosure or mistakenly providing wrong information, even carelessly, is not enough. Permitting contempt proceedings would not justify the resources required and would not further the overriding objective.
Facts
The claimants have for some years run a business in the financial sector. It is known as “Blue Tractor”. There are various Blue Tractor companies. I asked the parties to provide an agreed form of words describing the business of Blue Tractor. Helpfully, they obliged:
“Blue Tractor was created to develop novel intellectual property (“IP”) that would allow it to obtain exemptive relief from the SEC [ Securities and Exchange Commission] in the USA to trade in non-transparent exchange traded funds on USA markets. Exemptive relief was granted for Blue Tractor which allows it to licence its novel IP to third parties who trade on the NASDAQ [ National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations] and NYSE [ New York Stock Exchange].”
At a late stage during the hearing before me, I was told that a Divisional Court comprising Dingemans LJ and William Davis J (as he then was) had given a substantive judgment on 18 December 2020 in the judicial review claim brought by these claimants and their son: see R (Norman) v. Crown Court at Chelmsford and Chief Constable of Essex Police [2020] EWHC 3456 (Admin).
I gratefully adopt paragraphs 7–16 of Dingemans LJ's lead judgment in that case for the history leading up to and including execution of the warrant:
“7. In February 2019 Essex police received intelligence suggesting that Mr Norman was running an investment scheme called “Blue Tractor” which was a vehicle for fraud. In addition on 4 September 2018 a financial institution had reported to a law enforcement agency that concerns had been raised about a deposit of cash made into a bank account by one person for a friend to purchase shares in Blue Tractor (UK) Limited (“Blue Tractor UK”). Essex police made inquiries which showed that Mr Norman had not been employed since 2008 and had paid no income tax since 2008. Bank accounts associated with him and his companies had a turnover in excess of £1 million. A personal bank account had a balance of £202,000 and a turnover in the period February 2018 to February 2019 of £640,000. Companies controlled by Mr Norman were Blue Tractor Europe Limited (“Blue Tractor Europe”) which was dormant, and Global Financial Solutions Limited (“GFS”), Blue Tractor UK and Towergate Consultants Limited (“Towergate”) which had no turnover. Vehicles with an estimated value of £1 million were registered at Mr and Mrs Norman's home which was called Ropers Farm situated in Essex. Ropers Farm was a substantial property with no mortgage. A website for Blue Tractor UK and other internet reports suggested that financial algorithms were being developed.
8. Detective Sergeant Adler (now Detective Inspector Adler) (“DI Adler”) decided to apply for search warrants. On 19 March 2019 an application was made to Her Honour Judge Lynch QC in the Crown Court at Chelmsford for a search warrant under the special procedure in schedule 1 of PACE. The warrant was issued but it was noticed that there was an error in the address for Ropers Farm and a new warrant was applied for and granted on 25 March 2019 by HHJ Lynch.
9. On 27 March 2019 DI Adler set out in a policy decision dated 27 March 2019 a decision to arrest “all adult members of family present at Ropers Farm on the day of the warrant for the money laundering offences”. The rationale was recorded as:
“there is sufficient grounds to suggest that all adult members of the family [Mr and Mrs Norman, their adult sons and adult daughters] have benefitted from the offences. All live on the property and the vehicles are in their names. There are huge amounts of financial transactions through the various accounts and very little in the way of HMRC declarations, certainly not consistent with their wealth. So as not to prejudice the criminal investigation and allow them to collude prior to interview, I believe that it is justified to arrest and interview as soon as practicable which will be on the day. This will also ensure that the we can satisfactorily seize items subject to PACE conditions and that the criminal investigations can run side to side with any possible HMRC investigation”.
10. On 2 April 2019 an application was made to His Honour Judge Gratwicke for a fresh warrant under section 352 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA”). However the draft warrants had the wrong heading and he refused the application, and discharged the earlier warrants.
11. On 9 April 2019 successful applications were made for search and seizure warrants issued pursuant to section 352 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA”) in respect of two properties being: (1) Ropers Farm; and (2) offices at 4 Hadleigh Business Centre, 351 London Road, Benfleet, Essex (“the offices”) by the Crown Court at Chelmsford.
12. At some stage it was decided to arrest only Mr Norman on the execution of the warrants.
The arrests
13. The warrants were executed on 16 April 2019 at 7.30 am at Ropers Farm. DI Adler pressed the intercom on electric gates at the end of the drive at Ropers Farm. There was a delay and the intercom was answered and DI Adler reported that he had a warrant to search the premises. There was then a further delay of several minutes and the gates were opened. Mr and Mrs Norman's son was located in a bungalow and he was arrested. Mr Norman showed DI Adler around the house and opened a safe containing money and he was arrested at 0737 hours on suspicion of fraud and money-laundering. PC Bridge and DS Robson found carrier bags containing cash concealed in bushes at the back of the garden. Footmarks were said to be noted in the dew on the lawn leading from the kitchen across the garden to the gate at the end of the garden near to the bushes. A pair of ladies' trainers were found which were wet and with grass cuttings, with the heels turned down which was said to suggest that they had been put on and taken off in a hurry. Mrs Norman was the only adult female who was up and seemed to have dressed hurriedly. DI Adler and DC O'Toole suspected that Mrs Norman had placed the bags of cash in the hedge to conceal them from police officers conducting the search. At 0910 hours Mrs Norman was arrested on suspicion of fraud and money-laundering.
14. Various documents, cash, jewellery, a piano and vehicles were seized. It was common ground that the seizure of the jewellery, piano and cash was not covered by the terms of the warrant. Mrs Norman made a complaint that she was advised to remove jewellery on arrest so that it could be safely left in the house, and it was then seized. About £100,000 in cash was found in the house and in the bushes.
15. Mr Norman was interviewed at the police station at 1328 hours. Mr and Mrs Norman's son was interviewed at the police station at 1701 hours. Mrs Norman was interviewed at the police station at 1828 hours.
16. Attempts were made to enforce the warrant at the offices. The offices were in fact the address of a firm of chartered accountants who provided accountancy services to Mr Norman and the companies. The police were refused...
To continue reading
Request your trial