King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

QB-2020-004171 - [2025] EWHC 2773 (KB)

Fecha: 27-Oct-2025

III The search warrant, refusal of Fourth Application and C1’s arrest

III The search warrant, refusal of Fourth Application and C1’s arrest

33.

On 28 November 2014, an ex parte application for a search warrant was made to Croydon Magistrates’ Court in relation to multiple premises/vehicles associated with the brewery and C1 (‘the Warrant application’). The Warrant application was drafted by Mr Muldoon. It followed an internal assurance process and was ultimately authorised by his line manager Ms Alison Chipperton. The application was signed by Mr Muldoon. The application recorded amongst other matters:

(a)

The Warrant was sought in connection with the criminal investigation into suspected “large scale VAT suppression in excess of £500,000”.

(b)

The criminal offence under investigation was cheating the public revenue contrary to common law by evading VAT contrary to s. 72 (1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and C1 was the primary suspect.

(c)

C1’s admitted failure to submit or make the necessary payments in relation to VAT, Corporation Tax, personal Self-Assessment Income Tax, NIC and PAYE in respect of employees.

(d)

The suspected extent of non-payment of VAT based on information provided by C1 in his Confiscation Order proceedings as set against HMRC’s VAT assessments (in the region of £2000 per VAT quarter which had been paid by C1).

(e)

C1 had “continually made excuses to the court in relation to non-payment of the [Confiscation] order and non-completion of business records, blaming bad financial advice and regular changes to accountant and business advisers”.

(f)

C1 had repeatedly given undertakings to bring his tax affairs up to date but has continually failed to do so, such that Mr Muldoon believed he had the deliberate intention of defrauding HMRC.

(g)

An analysis of bank statements for LFCP provided by the Claimants showed it receiving funds in the region of £130,000-£270,000 a month (in spite of the limited company being listed as dormant at Companies House).

(h)

It identified the premises to be searched pursuant to the warrant as C1’s home address, the Premises, 369-370 Helmsley Place (rented by the brewery) and two cars registered to or driven by C1.

(i)

It identified the business records, personal and business account records and electronic devices which were sought and explained why information contained in these items were likely to be relevant and of substantial value in helping clarify the scope of the suspected fraud and VAT owed.

(j)

By way of background information which was “incidental to this current application”, set out a “brief outline of [C1’s] history with HMRC” which, amongst other matters, addressed in summary terms the Claimants’ interaction with HMRC in connection with the Registration applications and the non-payment of excise duties.

34.

On 2 December 2014, officers involved in the criminal investigation: - (i) executed the Warrant in relation to the Premises, (ii) arrested C1 on suspicion of cheating the public revenue contrary to common law (with reference to VAT and other revenue/PAYE obligations), and (iii) interviewed C1 during which he gave a largely no comment interview. C2 was not arrested. Mr Muldoon stated in the application for the warrant that whilst she was partner of the business, he did not believe at that time that she was involved in the fraud being investigated. She said that her role had been in relation to HR and that she had only recently returned to work after a period of maternity. In the light of her personal circumstances, she was interviewed via voluntary attendance on 26 February 2015 when she gave a ‘no comment’ interview.

35.

On the same day, 2 December 2014, Officers involved in the civil investigation entered the Premises pursuant to s.112 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) (as opposed to under the Warrant): - (i) served C1 with the refusal of the application to register LCFP dated 2 December 2014 (the “Refusal”), (ii) exercised their powers under s.139 of CEMA to seize packaged beer which according to C1 had a value of £67,505.98 and 45,079.20 litres of beer in bulk storage. (This was restored to the Claimants following payment on the same day of £39,162.15 duty in accordance with s.152(b) of CEMA), and (iii) issued a Notice 12A to Ms Titus (the lawyer representing C1/the brewery) which set out the right to appeal against the seizure.

36.

The Refusal explained that having considered all available information in respect of LFCP and the Claimants, it had been decided that there had been non-compliance across numerous heads of duty and failures to meet various statutory requirements which rendered the brewery unsuitable (or not fit for purpose) for Registration.

37.

By letters dated 22 December 2014 and 16 January 2015 the Claimants sought a review of the Refusal. The review was carried out by Allan Donnachie (Appeals and Reviews Officer) who had had no involvement in dealing with the Applications. Mr Donnachie refused the review (the “Review”).

38.

LFCP submitted an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal on 27 March 2015 (TC/2015/02542). The Defendant provided a response on 16 June 2015 inviting the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. Thereafter, LFCP discontinued its appeal.