Business Search Warrants

In the UK the police, SFO, OFT, HMRC and FCA are amongst the law enforcement agencies that can carry out “dawn raids” on business premises. Simultaneous searches of the home premises of target individuals often follow.

As soon as the police arrive it is essential that a company exercises its legal right to immediate external legal advice. We can assist by negotiating with the authorities to ensure that the business can continue to function, briefing management and staff on their entitlements and ensuring that any search and seizure of property is lawfully conducted.

This may involve verifying that investigators are acting under a lawful legal mandate, keeping an independent record of all property seized deal and making sure that communications protected by legal professional privilege are properly logged and dealt with.

Roger Sahota is one of the leading solicitors in this field, having appeared as junior counsel in one of the landmark search warrant cases before the Divisional Court in 2014, F and Others. Roger is also the author of a guide for companies and law firms that may find themselves subject to a search warrant published in the Law Society Gazette.

Client A was the owner and MD of a company providing training services that was the subject of parallel regulatory and police investigations. His original lawyers had not scrutinised the conduct of the police during the course of the investigation. On review, BSQ advised that the client and other accused had grounds to apply to quash the search warrants obtained by the police and to challenge cash detention orders. Judicial review proceedings commenced and were later settled with the authorities agreeing to quash the search warrants and pay compensation to each client. The cash seizure proceedings were also settled with in excess of £200,000 in sum total returned to our clients. The BSQ partner instructed was Roger Sahota.

Client B, a media professional running his own production company, was the subject of a false complaint made to the police. Acting on the complaint, police attended his address and arrested him. The police relied on his arrest per s.32 of PACE 1984 as a legal basis for searching his home and seizing personal items including computer equipment. He sought advice on how to challenge the conduct of the police. BSQ initiated judicial review proceedings claiming that the arrest and seizure of property belonging to the client was unlawful as the s.32 PACE powers had been misused. On the eve of trial, the police settled the claim agreeing to pay compensation and costs. The criminal investigation was discontinued. BSQ’s partner Roger Sahota was instructed.

Client C was said to be the organiser of an international people trafficking ring. It was alleged that he had been instrumental in trafficking migrants from parts of Asia into the UK via Europe and France. C sought a second opinion from BSQ who advised that he had grounds to challenge the search warrants which led to the seizure of key evidence in his case. C’s original lawyers had not advised this. Judicial review proceedings were threatened in correspondence. The authorities agreed that the warrant was unlawful and should be quashed. Compensation was paid to C. BSQ partner Roger Sahota was instructed.