Haralambous (Appellant) v Hertfordshire Constabulary (Respondent)
Case ID: UKSC 2016/0130
- In proceedings for judicial review of the legality of a search warrant issued ex parte, is it permissible for the High Court to have regard to evidence which is not disclosed to the subject of the warrant?
- If so, does the same apply to judicial review proceedings regarding the legality of an order made inter parties for retention of unlawfully seized material under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001?
- If the answer to both (a) and (b) are yes, do the principles in Tariq v Home Office concerning irreducible minimum disclosure apply to proceedings concerning search warrants?
This appeal arises in relation to search and seizure warrants issued by the St. Albans Magistrates’ Court in the absence of the appellant on 16 June 2014. These were executed on 26 June 2014 and on 16 September 2014 materials on which the police had relied in obtaining the warrants were provided to the appellant in redacted form. The appellant applied to the magistrates’ court for disclosure of the redacted materials, and his application was refused by District Judge Mellanby on 25 September 2014 on grounds of public interest immunity.
The appellant subsequently challenged the legality of the warrants and consequent searches by means of an application for judicial review. This was conceded by the police on 24 March 2015, who made a protective application under s.59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for continued retention of the seized materials. That application was granted by HHJ Bright QC on 11 June 2015, and the appellant sought judicial review of this decision. Permission was granted but judicial review was refused on 22 April 2016.
- St Albans Crown Court
- Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
Hearing start date
08 Nov 2017
Hearing finish date
08 Nov 2017
|08 Nov 2017||Morning session||Afternoon session|