Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 28 (Feb)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 522 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court
Judge:

Elias LJ and Calvert Smith J (Judgment delivered extempore)

Representation Alun Jones QC and Amanda Jones (instructed by Bhogal Partners, Hounslow) for the claimants.
  The first defendant did not appear and was not represented.
  John Beggs QC and Rajeev Shetty (instructed by the Department of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police) for the Commissioner.
Judgment Dates: 3 February 2010

Catchwords

Police - Search warrant - Extent of police powers under warrant - Execution of warrant without identification of addresses to be searched - Police officers providing owner/occupier of premises with copy warrant pursuant to requirements of statutory regime - Officers filling out box on copy warrant identifying premises to be searched - Whether practice consistent with statutory regime - Whether searches lawful - ss 15, 16.

The Case

Police Search warrant. The Divisional Court held, in allowing the instant application for judicial review, that a Schedule of premises to be searched was a crucial and integral part of a search warrant, but that where a Schedule was not provided with a copy warrant, it was not acceptable for an officer to fill out a box on the same in order to comply with the relevant provisions in PtII of the as, in such situations, a householder would not know whether a search of his-her premises was or was not lawful. The Court also commented that the relevant Home Office guidance authorising such practices was wrong.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.