Kouyoumjian & Anor v Hammersmith Magistrates Court & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- MR JUSTICE MITTING
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a challenge to the lawfulness of search warrants issued under PACE 1984 and the retention of seized materials under S.59 CJPA 2001. The court found the warrants unlawful, ordering the return of seized materials and awarding damages to the Claimants. MR JUSTICE MITTING highlighted the police's duty of candour in such proceedings.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS:
The Background to the Claim
This is a claim for Judicial Review of a decision of District Judge Jennifer Edwards to grant four search warrants pursuant to S.8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on 13 February 2014. The warrants were executed on 22 February 2014. I will set out in a little more detail some of the circumstances leading to the application and what happened subsequently in a moment. In short, the material seized consisted of four laptop computers, one desktop computer, various smartphones and hard copy documents. They were taken from the business premises of the Claimants in the present proceedings.
The application for Judicial Review was issued on 14 May 2014. The Claimants are brothers. The first is a director of several companies and he runs a property portfolio as well. The Second Claimant, whom I shall refer to as Sarkis, is a disqualified director but he assists his brother in running various companies. Sarkis is disqualified from being a company director until 2015. The companies are broadly concerned with restaurants and their turnover is about £3 million per annum.
The claim for Judicial Review challenged both the issue of the warrants and their execution. The relief sought is set out in section 7 of the Judicial Review claim form and is as follows:
"1) A declaration that the entry, searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants were unlawful.
An order quashing the warrants.
A mandatory order for the return of all material seized and the destruction of any copies taken and an order that no use be made of any knowledge gained as a result of examining the material seized under the warrants.
Damages.
Costs."
An Acknowledgment of Service was made by the Respondents on 4 June 2004. In section D of that form it stated:
"Although the Defendant will not be contesting the claim for judicial review. [sic] The Defendant does not agree to return the seized material to the Claimants at this time.
The Defendant will be seeking to agree an order with the Claimants to include a time period in which the return of the currently seized material is stayed pending any order of the Crown Court under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 , under which Act the Defendant will be issuing an application. The Defendant requests the court allows a period of time for the parties to seek to agree the terms of such an order."
In fact, nothing very much happened until 5 Septemb