April 15, 2026
In the latest edition of FOCUS, Tom Forster KC distils the High Court’s decision in R (GSX) v Crown Court at Southwark [2026] EWHC 538 (Admin) — a case that reinforces just how high the threshold remains for claimants seeking relief after an unlawful search.
Although the Financial Conduct Authority conceded serious errors in the warrant application, including using the wrong statutory route and presenting a defective warrant, the court found no bad faith. Its handling of a sensitive information form (SIF) “fell far short of the standards to be expected”, but amounted to a lack of care rather than deliberate misconduct. Because the failings did not reach the level of “egregious disregard for statutory safeguards”, the court refused to order the return of material or restrict its use. Instead, it held that the statutory s.59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 process should determine retention.
Tom Forster KC writes: “The judgment underscores a clear message: even serious procedural shortcomings will rarely justify bypassing the s.59 mechanism. Only bad faith or truly egregious conduct will persuade the Administrative Court to intervene.”
Read FOCUS here
Tom Forster KC is joint Head of Chambers at Red Lion Chambers, London. He specialises in business crime and public and administrative law. He acts in both contentious and related pre-contentions matters as well as advising in non-contentious work including issues of policy
Ed Vickers KC specialises in fraud and serious & complex criminal cases. He is the editor of Red Lion Chambers’ Focus on Fraud blog
To receive the Red Lion Chambers Fraud Newsletter and FOCUS fraud blog each month please subscribe here