QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE EADY
| The Queen on the Application of Gayle Horne, Denise May and James May
|- and -
|The Central Criminal Court
The Crown Prosecution Service
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Rupert Jones (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) and Ms Karen Steyn (instructed by HM Revenue and Customs) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 18th April 2012
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Moses:
"(1) For the purposes of this Part the confiscation investigation is an investigation into –
(a) whether a person has benefited from his criminal conduct or
(b) the extent or whereabouts of his benefit from his criminal conduct."
"For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person benefits from an offence if he obtains property as a result of or in connection with its commission and his benefit is the value of the property so obtained."
"For the purposes of this Part an exploitation proceeds investigation is an investigation for the purposes of Part 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (criminal memoirs etc) into -
(c) the value of any benefits derived by a person from a relevant offence, or
(d) the available amount in respect of a person."
Had there been any intention to embrace within the concept of benefit realisable property or an available amount, Parliament could have said so. It is plain that the statute does not contemplate a confiscation investigation into anything other than the existence, quantification or location of benefit.
Improper Purpose and Sufficiency of Evidence
The Terms of the Search Warrant
"…a warrant should be capable of being understood by those carrying out the search and by those whose premises are being searched, without reference to any other document." 
"(6) In the case of a confiscation investigation, material falls within this sub-section if it cannot be identified at the time with the application but it –
(a) relates to the person specified in the application, the question whether he has benefited from his criminal conduct or any question as to the extent or whereabouts of his benefit from his criminal conduct, and
(b) is likely to be of substantial value (whether or not by itself) to the investigation for the purposes of which the warrant is sought."
"to enter and search premises at…to seize and retain material in accordance with s.353(6) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and that does not consist of legal privilege material or excluded material."
In my view, it would have been preferable if the warrant had identified the purpose as relating to the whereabouts of Raymond May's benefit from his criminal conduct. But since the reference to s.353(6) cannot possibly have misled the claimant as to its purpose or placed her under any identifiable disadvantage, it does not seem to me that the absence of further specificity affords any ground for quashing the warrant.
Mr Justice Eady: