header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008 / Paul Firth
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

A slipshod execution

Post Redknapp, police and magistrates should appreciate the gravity of requests for a search warrant, says Paul Firth

Every magistrate in the land would do well to heed the lessons learnt from the judgment in Redknapp v City of London Police [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 319 (May) in relation to the issue and execution of search warrants.

On 19 November 2007 warrants were issued under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) to search eight premises, including the home address of Portsmouth FC manager, Harry Redknapp. The warrants were executed in the early hours of 29 November and were the subject of judicial review proceedings determined by the High Court on 23 May 2008.

Judicial review of search warrants is a rare procedure. In the Redknapp case, the procedure itself prevented the court from coming to a detailed judgment on some matters. Evidence or a lack of evidence played a significant role, not least because there were central evidential

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll