BSQ have settled a claim for judicial review in relation to the conduct of a state investigative agency and their search of our client’s premises.
Rather than obtaining a search warrant, in a pre-planned operation the state agency purported to rely on Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to justify the search. Our application for judicial review challenged the legality of their conduct on the basis this was not a proper use of these statutory powers. Section 32 allows for the search of any premises where the suspect was found or was present at immediately before their arrest, not a pre-planned operation. .
BSQ have been involved in a number of landmark search warrant cases in recent years including many that have settled outside court.
In relation to the misuse of section 32 PACE powers this remains an area of some controversy in our view and we continue to look for a test case precedent to examine the law in this area. In our view many state agencies are circumventing applications for search warrants by employing section 32 PACE when its use cannot be justified.
BSQ partner Roger Sahota was instructed – Roger has been involved in a number of successful search warrant judicial reviews including R (on the application of F) v Blackfriars Crown Court  EWHC 1541 (Admin).
BSQ Partner Daniel Godden also featured in the notable case of Lord Hanningfield.
Rupert Bowers QC of Doughty Street Chambers was leading counsel