On 22 August 2023, officers of the Metropolitan Police executed a search warrant at the home address of XY.  After arresting the defendant, officers searching his home address seized high value jewellery, a large amount of cash and a large number of digital devices, namely telephones and computers/laptops.

In the winter of 2024, Benjamin Waidhofer was instructed by Ayeh Nowroozi of Sweetman Burke and Sinker to challenge the seizure of items seized and seek their return.  In light of submissions drafted by Benjamin Waidhofer, a matter of days before the final hearing of an application made pursuant to section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Metropolitan Police (which had initially made the application to retain material uplifted) conceded the application entirely, agreeing to return all items seized (save an item identified as counterfeit) to XY.

The background to the case involved an international investigation relating to the theft of valuable antique whiskey from premises in Denmark and its onward sale, resulting in the identification of 2 bottles of whiskey being advertised for sale through an auction house in the United Kingdom.

In the course of a detailed application for a search warrant dated 23 June 2023, the police asserted inter alia that the listing of the bottles by auction could be traced to XY and that XY had a number of previous convictions recorded against them.

Following XY’s arrest in August 2023, those representing XY wrote to the Metropolitan Police, informing officer that the magistrates’ court had been materially misled because XY was – in fact - a man of hitherto good character.

Written correspondence throughout 2024 and 2025 involved the Metropolitan Police repeatedly assured those representing XY that proceedings pursuant to section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 had been launched to enable the police to retain material which had been seized.

In fact, the application was first served on the Court on 14 October 2025.

In the course of forceful written submissions, Benjamin Waidhofer invited the Crown Court to refuse the application made by the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and order the return all the items uplifted, asserting the Metropolitan Police had misled:

1. the magistrates’ court when applying for the original search warrant, not only in respect of XY’s antecedent history but also in respect of material it sought to uplift;
2. the representatives of XY in the course of the written correspondence between the date of XY’s arrest and October 2025; and
3. the Crown Court by omitting material facts and concealing the position from the Crown Court in the course of its application pursuant to section 59 CPIA 2001.

Just before the final hearing was due to be heard, the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis informed those representing XY that it not only formally abandoned any attempt to retain material in the course of proceedings it had initiated, but that in addition to all material uplifted being returned to XY, XY was to be the subject of ‘No Further Action’ for the offences he had originally been arrested for.

The power to apply for the return of items seized or purportedly seized in exercise of a power of seizure, including in the purported execution of a search warrant, is wholly contained within section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.   This section of the Act is normally utilised by investigating or searching officers to retain and review material seized and uplifted in circumstances when they would otherwise fall to be returned.  What is less well known is that this legislation, as drafted, also permits persons with a relevant interest in seized property to apply for the return of items uplifted.

Benjamin specialises in this niche area of challenging the legality of obtaining search warrants ex parte, production orders and the subsequent execution of such orders with a track history of success in this field.  He is  regularly instructed both by private individuals and corporations  in the course of challenging orders obtained by – and subsequent conduct of – agencies such as the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and HMRC.