0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Regina v Sanghera

27 October 2000
The issues

Police – are they justified without occupiers consent – searching premises of robbery victim.

The facts

Appellant was the victim of an armed robbery. He was a Postmaster. He handed his keys to the Post Office to the Police.

Two days after his complaint a Police search authorisation was completed. The words “searched with consent” were ticked. It as unsigned and consent was not in fact obtained. In the process of the search the Police discovered a large amount of cash in a box above the safe. Subsequently, the Claimant was surveyed following application to the Chief Constable. The Appellant was subsequently tried for theft. The Appellant argued that evidence of what had been found should not be given because it had been unlawfully obtained since the search had been conducted in Code B.

The Crown contended that because the Code did not apply to routine search of crime searches the Appellant’s argument had no substance because the Post Office was a scene of crime. Secondly, the Crown argued that the Code was designed to protect those under suspicion and not victims.

The decision

i) Although the searched commenced as a routine scene of crime search it was a routine scene of crime search by the time the money was detected. The exception in the Code was not intended to cover such circumstances.

ii) The Code should be regarded as applying generally to the search of premises and occupier is not deprived of protection because he was a victim rather than a suspect.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up