Ace Custom Services Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (NSW)

[1991] FCA 616

Re: ACE CUSTOM SERVICES PTY LTD; DOUBLE ACE TRANSPORT PTY LTD; TURNER LAW
CUSTOMS SERVICES PTY LTD and KINGFISH CARGO and CUSTOMS AGENCY PTY LTD
And: THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (NEW SOUTH WALES) and LAWRENCE ALLAN MADDEN
No. G189 of 1991
FED No. 616
Customs and Excise
(1991) 104 ALR 463
(1991) 31 FCR 576

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Davies J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Customs and Excise - "raid" by Customs officers - notices and warrants under s.214 - seizure of documents and a computer - whether applicant companies were the "owners" of goods under the Customs Act - whether documents demanded must be related to "the owner" - whether a clear request made for the documents required - whether a reasonable opportunity to comply must be allowed - whether a failure to comply with a requirement under s.214 - whether a computer is a "document" - whether a requirement to produce a writing that reproduces the information in the computer rather than the computer itself.

Customs Act 1914 (Cth) - ss.4(1), 183(1), 214(1), 214(3)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) - ss.25, 25A

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 18:10:1991

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr C.J. Stevens

Solicitors for the Applicants: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P. Roberts

Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

Counsel bring in within 14 days short minutes of orders reflecting these reasons for judgment.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is a proceeding seeking orders by way of judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") and under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

1. The proceedings arise out of the seizure on 22 and 23 April 1991 by officers of the Collector of Customs (NSW) of documents and a computer which were held by the applicants. The applicants are four associated companies of which the first applicant, Ace Customs Services Pty Ltd ("Ace Customs"), appears to be a company providing services with respect to the importation of goods into and the exportation of goods from Australia. The second applicant, Double Ace Transport Pty Ltd ("Double Ace"), is a transport company which arranges and provides transport in Australia for goods brought into or exported from Australia. The third applicant, Turner Law Customs Services Pty Ltd ("Turner Law"), holds a licence as a customs agent under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) ("the Act"), and all customs formalities in relation to transactions conducted by the other applicants are carried out in its name, or more strictly, by or in the name of its authorised nominee. The fourth applicant, Kingfish Cargo and Customs Agency Pty Ltd ("Kingfish"), like Ace Customs, provides customs services to importers and exporters but is not a licensed customs agent.

2. The business address of the applicants is 42 Church Avenue, Mascot, New South Wales. The principal director of the applicants is Mr I.C. Turner. When he is out of the office, the person in charge is Mr N.D. Pride, who describes himself as the "Office Manager". Mr Pride has a business card which has on it the name "Ace Customs Services Pty Ltd" and his name as "Manager". On this basis, it was faintly argued by counsel for the applicants that Mr Pride had authority to speak only on behalf of Ace Customs. I am satisfied, however, that Mr Pride does work for and has authority on behalf of all four applicants. Indeed, the businesses of Ace Customs, of Turner Law and of Kingfish appear to be carried on as if they were one business. Double Ace is in a slightly different position because its activities are limited to transport and it does work both for customers of the other applicants and for other people. In their evidence, Mr Turner and Mr Pride found it difficult to distinguish between the activities of Ace Customs, Turner Law and Kingfish.

3. On the morning of 22 April 1991, while Mr Turner was absent from the business premises, officers of the Collector of Customs headed by the second respondent Mr L.A. Madden spoke to Mr Pride and served on him three notices under s.214(1) of the Act. After a short further discussion, Mr Madden served on Mr Pride three customs warrants under s.214(3). The notices and warrants were addressed to Ace Customs, Double Ace and Turner Law. They then seized a great number of documents which were in the business premises and the computer used in the business of the applicants and removed them from the premises. On the following day, they seized other documents of the applicants stored at Link Bond.

4. Subsequently, when application was made to this Court, an interlocutory order was made requiring the documents to be sealed and kept safe pending the decision of the Court. The computer has now been returned but not before the information thereon was extracted and placed with the other seized material.

5. The seizure was an unusual one for the documents seized were not those of a particular importer or exporter but were miscellaneous documents of a licensed customs agent, of two companies providing customs services and of a company providing transport, none of whom in their own right imported or exported goods. The documents seized related to many clients and covered many years and a multitude of transactions. The object of the events, no doubt, was to seize and go through the files of the customs agencies so as to ascertain whether any pattern was disclosed which would lead to the conclusion that unlawful or wrongful conduct had occurred in relation to the importation or exportation of goods.

6. Section 214 first deals with the making of a request for information. Section 214(1) provides:-
   

"Whenever information in writing has been given on oath to the Collector that goods have been unlawfully imported exported undervalued or entered or illegally dealt with, or that it is intended to unlawfully import export undervalue enter or illegally deal with any goods, or whenever any goods have been seized or detained, the owner shall immediately upon being required so to do by the Collector produce and hand over to him all books and documents relating to the goods so imported exported entered seized or detained undervalued or illegally dealt with, or intended to be unlawfully imported exported undervalued entered or illegally dealt with, and of all other goods imported or exported by him at any time within the period of 5 years immediately preceding such request seizure or detention, and shall also produce for the inspection of the Collector or such other officer as he may authorize for that purpose and allow such Collector or officer to make copies of or extracts from all books or documents of any kind whatsoever wherein any entry or memorandum appears in any way relating to any such goods.

Penalty: $1,000."

Regulation 171 provides that notices to produce documents under s.214 shall be in accordance with Form 61.

1. The seizure arose from an information lodged in relation to goods imported by Abu Garcia Pty Ltd ("Abu Garcia"), one of the clients of Ace Customs. For each importation, Abu Garcia, as with other clients, signs an authority under s.181 of the Act. That authority is to Ace Customs but by its verbiage extends to Turner Law and Kingfish. The information alleged that, in relation to a particular importation, the entry for home consumption had incorrectly referred to 8 packages when 9 packages were imported. The information alleged that the contents of Package No. 173217 were not covered by the invoice and were not entered for home consumption. The information alleged that Turner Law was the licensed customs agent acting in relation to the matter, that Double Ace acting as agent for Turner Law took the 9 packages from customs control, and that Ace Customs acting as agent for Turner Law delivered the 9 packages including Package No. 173217 to Abu Garcia.

2. Before the seizure with which we are concerned, officers of Customs had seized from Abu Garcia relevant documents relating to that importation and had also seized other documents relating to other goods imported by Abu Garcia. Documents relating to that importation had also been seized from other sources. The customs officers did not expect the applicant companies to hold any other or different documents with relation to that importation. But that of itself would not provide a reason for not seeking the documents.

3. The second respondent, Mr L.A. Madden, was the officer principally in charge of the "raid". The main interest of Mr Madden was to inspect not those documents but other documents, for he wished to see whether what had occurred in relation to the Abu Garcia importation had occurred on other occasions in relation to other clients of the applicants.

4. In taking the view that other documents could be demanded of the applicant companies in this way, Mr Madden relied upon the definition of "owner" in s.4(1) of the Act, which provides that, except where otherwise clearly intended:-
   

"`Owner' in respect of goods includes any person (other than an officer of Customs) being or holding himself out to be the owner, importer, exporter, consignee, agent, or person possessed of, or beneficially interested in, or having any control of, or power of disposition over the goods".

This definition is not an easy one to apply.

1. It is certainly true that a licensed customs agent may, for some purposes at least, be treated as if he were the owner of the imported goods. Thus, s.183(1) of the Act provides:-
   

"Where a person is, holds himself out to be or acts as if he were the agent of an owner of goods for the purposes of the Customs Acts, that person shall, for the purposes of the Customs Acts (including liability to penalty), be deemed to be the owner of those goods."

1. Nevertheless, the word "owner" is so strong a word indicating proprietary rights that I cannot accept that it is intended to impose the obligations of an owner upon any person who with authority does any act in relation to imported goods. As Mahoney J.A., with whom Priestley J.A. agreed, said in Collector of Customs (NSW) v Darch (1990) 98 ALR 225 at 230-231:-
   

"Where the goods were imported under a contract requiring them to be sent to a `consignee' or to a bailee having a beneficial interest in them, such persons would, in addition, be owners. It is, I think, clear that the definition is one to be applied according to the circumstances of particular cases. Section 4(1) commences with the words, `In this Act except where otherwise clearly intended ...' and the principle that regard is to be had to intendment is, I think, one particularly relevant in relation to this definition."

Leaving aside the effect of s.183(1), the definition in general appears to refer to persons who have the control of goods.

1. The definition therefore encompasses importers of all types, whether they have the legal ownership of the goods or are merely the persons in Australia to whom by arrangement the goods are consigned or who otherwise have the control of the goods. Like Mahoney J.A., I do not read the word "owner" as defined as referring to every person with authority who has anything to do with the importation of goods, whether it be unloading the same from a ship or aircraft, transporting the goods to a warehouse or transporting the goods when released from customs control to the importer.

2. Section 214, which in its present form merely amplifies provisions which were set out in the Act as originally enacted in 1901, is not to be read as if it were a replication of s.155 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or of ss.263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) which expressly empower the relevant authority to obtain information from any person. Section 214 empowers the Collector to obtain information, but only from "the owner". In this respect, it may be contrasted with s.214A(4) of the Act.

3. In this present case, the information did not allege that Kingfish played any part in the transaction or that Double Ace played any part other than in relation to the transport and delivery of the goods after they were released from customs control. Neither was "the owner" for the purposes of s.214. Any documents demanded or seized which were their documents, as distinct from the documents of Turner Law and Ace Customs, were wrongly demanded and seized. It is agreed that there were some such documents.

4. I would accept that, because of the provisions of s.183(1), a licensed customs agent is, for the purposes of the Act, to be treated as if it were the owner. Accordingly, I am of the view that a seizure of the relevant documents from Abu Garcia would not have precluded the officers of Customs from seeking production of documents from the licensed customs agent, Turner Law. That is because Turner Law acted for Abu Garcia, the owner, in relation to the importation the subject of the information. Turner Law was, by s.183(1), deemed to be within the concept of "owner" because it acted as the licensed customs agent in relation to that importation. And just as Abu Garcia was required to produce other documents relating to other importations by Abu Garcia, so I think that Turner Law could have been required to produce any documents which it had relating to any other importations by Abu Garcia, in respect of which it also had acted as licensed customs agent. But this is because the concept of owner in relation to an importation includes both the importer and the licensed customs agent.

5. I am also content to place Ace Customs in the same position as Turner Law. Neither Mr Turner nor Mr Pride could readily distinguish the business of the one from the business of the other. The customs agency appears to have been operated principally in the name of Ace Customs, though the formal customs documents were signed on behalf of Turner Law. I take Turner Law to be an instrument of Ace Customs. In any event, the written authorities given by Abu Garcia were given to Ace Customs, though they extended to Turner Law, and s.183(1) refers to a person who "holds himself out to be or acts as if he were the agent of an owner of goods."

6. Section 214 speaks of "the owner" and it has in mind that the documents may be seized from all those persons mentioned by the definition in s.4(1), i.e., the actual owner of the goods and any person who had control of the relevant goods at the time of importation including, because of s.183(1), the licensed customs agent who acted on the importation. But this means that when s.214 speaks of goods held by the owner, it is speaking of goods held by all those persons in that capacity. It is not speaking of goods or documents held by those persons in totally different capacities. I do not read s.214 as entitling the officers of Customs to demand the production of all documents held by a customs agent. The documents demanded must be related to "the owner" who was the subject of the information.

7. Accordingly, any documents of Ace Customs and of Turner Law which did not relate to Abu Garcia were unlawfully demanded.

8. Furthermore, no clear request was made to Mr Pride. It is sufficient to take the affidavit of Mr Madden. Mr Madden's affidavit shows that he had a conversation with Mr Pride about the particular transaction the subject of the information. Mr Pride could not remember anything useful about the matter. Mr Pride checked on the computer to see if it was recorded, which it was not, a fact which of itself calls for no comment because the computer had records going back only 12 to 18 months. According to Mr Madden's affidavit, Mr Pride then called a female employee and they went to inspect cartons stacked in front of the premises to see if they could find any documents relating to the transaction. Mr Madden's affidavit then records:-
   

"At about 9.50 am Pride returned to the office that Bush and I were in, and I said to him words to the following effect:

Madden: `In this particular shipment the entry was made by Turner Law, the duty was requested by Ace Customs, and the goods were removed from the waterfront and Customs control by Double Ace. There has been a breach of the Customs Act and I am serving on you these notices to produce documents.'

I then handed the original of each notice a true copy of which is annexure `C' hereto, and said to him words to the following effect: Madden: `I would like you to read them and tell me if you understand them. The notices require you to hand over to me immediately all documents relating to imports and exports for the last 5 years.'"

As can be seen, having returned from trying to find documents relating to this particular transaction and being unable to do so, which was not surprising in the context that many of the past records were not kept on the premises, Mr Pride was then handed notices addressed to Ace Customs, Double Ace and Turner Law under s.214(1), in accordance with Form 61. The notice to Ace Customs read:-

"Whereas information in writing has been given on oath that goods have by you been illegally dealt with on or about the thirteenth day of July, 1989.

Now therefore, I, the Collector of Customs for the State of New South Wales, by virtue of the powers conferred upon me by the Customs act

(sic) 1901, do hereby require you to produce and hand over to Lawrence Allan MADDEN an Officer of Customs duly authorised by me on my behalf to receive the same, all books and documents relating to such goods and relating to all other goods imported (or exported) by you at any time within the period of five years immediately preceding this request, and I further require you to produce for the inspection of the said Lawrence Allan MADDEN an Officer of Customs duly authorised by me for that purpose or such other Officer as I may authorise for the purpose, and allow such Officer to make copies of or extracts from all books or documents of any kind whatsoever wherein any Entry of memorandum appears in any way relating to any such goods."

As Mr Pride said in his evidence, and I accept, that he did not really understand what was being demanded of him by these documents. The notices referred to documents "imported (or exported) by you". The applicants did not import or export goods. Previously, Mr Madden had spoken only of an importation by Abu Garcia. He never explained that he sought all the documents held by the applicants for the period of the last five years.

1. Mr Madden's affidavit then went on to say:-
   

"Pride appeared to read the documents I had handed to him and we then continued our conversation in words to the following effect: Madden: `Under the Customs Act, sections 4 and 183, a customs agent is considered to be an owner.' Pride: `You are doing all this for $500.00 odd?' Madden: `In 1988 and 1989 you cancelled over 300 entries; I have a list of them in my bag. Because of the shipment I have already shown you I am obliged to satisfy myself that no similar occurrences have occurred. Can you produce the documents for these shipments?' Pride: `We will have to get them from Gosford (the accountant's premises), we can have them tomorrow.' Madden: `The Customs Act says immediately; I cannot wait that long.' Pride: `I am sorry, that is the best I can do. Shouldn't this be addressed to Ian?'

Madden: `I am dealing with you as the next in charge in Ian's absence. I consider you have not complied with these notices. I have 3 warrants which I am now executing.'"

Mr Madden and a team of officers then seized many cartons of documents and the applicant's computer from their Mascot premises. On the following day, the documents stored at Link Bond were seized.

1. As can be seen, Mr Madden never made it clear to Mr Pride which were the documents that he required. Mr Madden first asked about the documents relating to the particular importation. Mr Pride could not find any record on the computer. He then went and looked through some boxes of old records and could not find the particular documents. After having asked for documents about a particular transaction, Mr Madden handed to Mr Pride the notices requiring these documents and all other documents for the past five years to be produced, notices which, without explanation in the short time he had to peruse them, would have been incomprehensible to Mr Pride. Mr Madden then went on to speak of the cancellation of 300 entries and said he had a list in his bag.

2. It seems to me that, in the light of so many differing requests, Mr Pride was never required formally to produce any particular documents or class of documents other than the documents relating to the particular Abu Garcia importation which Mr Madden identified and to which the s.214 notices specifically referred.

3. As to these documents, it has not been shown that the documents were in fact on the premises as distinct from being wherever the other records were kept. Certainly, nobody in the course of the subsequent search and seizure exclaimed that he had found the vital documents relating to the Abu Garcia shipment. There is no evidence that these documents were identified in the course of the search and seizure at Mascot. If they were in the documents which were seized from the business premises at Mascot, they are in the sealed boxes which have yet to be inspected.

4. Section 214 empowers the Collector to require the owner to produce and hand over "all books and documents relating to the goods so imported", that is to say the goods referred to in the information, and "all other goods imported or exported by him at any time within the period 5 years immediately preceding such request".

5. As a failure to comply with s.214(1) is an offence in respect of which a penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed on conviction, and as s.214(3) uses the expression "fails to comply", it is implied that the request or requirement of the Collector must be expressed clearly so that the owner is not left in doubt as to what he is required to do to comply. See e.g. Pearce v Button (1985) 8 FCR 388 at p 397.

6. Moreover, although s.214(1) uses the adverb "immediately", the section implies that a reasonable opportunity to comply must be allowed. As Wallace P. said in R. v Skurray (1967) 2 NSWR 611 at p 612:-
   

"It is well settled, and good sense, that where a penal provision requires an act to be done either without a time being stipulated, or even where the act must be done `forthwith' a reasonable time is implied sufficient to enable performance to be effected."

Asprey J.A. said at p 616:-

"... in the absence of the immediate announcement of a refusal to perform, the word `fails' itself bears the connotation of a lapse of time to enable compliance with the obligation of performance; it imports the passage of some period of time which will vary with the nature of the act to be performed and the circumstances in which it is to be performed."

Similarly, as Pincus J. said in Pearce v Button at p 397:-

"Obviously, the legislature did not intend that the warrant be exercised with no proper opportunity to voluntarily comply. That is, the word `immediately' does not necessarily convey that compliance must be instant for (as in this case) with the best will in the world it may take some considerable time to assemble the relevant documents."

See also Ganke v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 75 ATC 4097 and Holmes v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 88 ATC 4328.

1. As to the alleged failure of Mr Pride to produce the documents related to the transaction the subject of the information, I am not satisfied that Mr Pride failed to do anything that he could have done in the time given to him. Mr Pride searched the computer and found no record of the transaction. He then took one of the office girls and searched manually for the documents before announcing that he did not have them. There is no evidence before the Court that the documents were on the premises. Certainly, there is no evidence that any person involved in the later seizure of documents or in the transcription of information from the computer identified information or documents as that which had been requested.

2. There was another conversation between Mr Madden and Mr Pride as to where the documents might be. Mr Pride said he thought they might be stored with the applicants' accountant. Mr Madden did not believe him. In fact, the archived documents were located when later Mr Turner, who knew where they were, said that they were in a container at Link Bond. On the evidence before me, however, I see no reason to doubt Mr Pride's evidence that he did not know where the archived documents were kept and that, in the time available, he could not find the documents on the Mascot premises.

3. As to the remainder of the request to produce documents, I am satisfied that Mr Pride did not and could not reasonably have been expected to understand that he was being requested to produce to Mr Madden all the documents which were held in the business premises relating to all of the applicants' clients and all transactions within the last five years. Mr Madden did not say so orally and the reference in the s.214 notice to goods "imported (or exported) by you" would not have been intelligible to Mr Pride as the applicants did not import or export goods.

4. Mr Madden's affidavit states that he handed the three written s.214 notices to Mr Pride. Mr Pride read them and made no useful response. After saying "I consider you have not complied with these notices, I have three warrants which I am now executing", Mr Madden then showed Mr Pride the three warrants and proceeded with the seizure. That was about 10:02 a.m. Mr Madden's affidavit discloses that, at about 10:25 a.m., Mr Pride came up to him and said words to the following effect:-
   

"Ian Turner is on the phone and would like to speak to you. He tells me that the old documents that you are after are in a container at Link Bond. They must have been put there while I was on holidays."

It is accepted that the old documents, the archived documents which probably included the documents relating to the particular Abu Garcia importation, were in fact in a container at Link Bond.

Section 214(3) provides:-

"If any person fails to comply with a requirement by the Collector under this section, an officer of Customs or officer of police, having with him a Customs Warrant in the form of Schedule V hereto, may, at any time of the day or night, break open and enter into any house, premises or place in which any books or documents relating to the goods are or are supposed to be, and search -

(a) the house, premises or place;

(b) any person therein or thereon; and

(c) any chests, trunks or packages therein or thereon, and take possession of, remove and impound any of those books and documents which are found."

For the reasons I have already mentioned, it seems to me that there was no failure on the part of Mr Pride or of any of the applicants to comply with a requirement under s.214 and, accordingly, the execution of the warrants was invalid.

1. The words "fails to comply" refer to what occurred in fact, not to the Collector's or to Mr Madden's view as to what occurred. As was said by Nagle J. in Ganke's case at p 4102:-
   

"... the question for consideration by the Court is an objective one and does not depend on the subjective views of the Commissioner. To adopt a contrary view would give rise to a Draconian situation as to demand the clearest and most explicit words in s. 264, and this I do not find."

1. I would add, though the point was not raised by Mr C. Stevens, counsel for the applicants, that the warrant, which was in accordance with the form in Schedule V to the Act, directed its attention to the premises expected to contain documents relating to the particular Abu Garcia importation to which the information related. The Ace Customs' warrant read:-
   

"Whereas information in writing has been given on oath that goods have been illegally dealt with. You are hereby authorised, in the event of Ace Customs Services Pty Ltd failing to comply immediately with any requirement made in pursuance of Section Two Hundred and Fourteen of the Customs Act 1901, to enter into, at any time of the day or night, and search any house premises or place in which any books or documents relating to the goods are or are supposed to be; and to break open any such house premises or place and search any person therein and thereon and any chests trunks or packages therein or thereon; and take possession of, remove and impound any of those books and documents which are found: and for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant. This Warrant has force throughout the State of New South Wales.

This Warrant shall remain in force for a period of one month from the date thereof unless revoked before the expiration of that period."

Note that where the word "goods" first appears, it refers to the goods the subject of the information. The warrant subsequently refers to "the goods". This term refers to the goods the subject of the information.

1. In brief, the terms of the warrant set out in Schedule V and the terms of s.214(3) appear to direct their attention to the goods the subject of the information, not to documents relating to other goods which may have been imported during the past five years. Section 214(3) and the warrant appear to authorise entry into and search of the premises "in which any books or documents relating to the goods are or are supposed to be" and the seizure of "any of those books and documents", that is to say, of documents relating to the goods the subject of the information.

2. That, of course, was not the prime purpose of or the limited ambit of Mr Madden's search and seizure.

3. However, I merely mention the point. It was not relied upon by Mr Stevens.

4. Mr Stevens also submitted that the seizure of the computer was unlawful. A computer is not itself a document but the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) by s.25 provides:-
   

"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

`document' includes:

...

(b) any paper or other material on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and

(c) any article or material from which sounds, images or writings are capable of being reproduced with or without the aid of any other article or device".

Section 25A further provides:-

"Where a person who keeps a record of information by means of a mechanical, electronic or other device is required by or under an Act to produce the information or a document containing the information to, or make a document containing the information available for inspection by, a court, tribunal or person, then, unless the court, tribunal or person otherwise directs, the requirement shall be deemed to oblige the person to produce or make available for inspection, as the case may be, a writing that reproduces the information in a form capable of being understood by the court, tribunal or person, and the production of such a writing to the court, tribunal or person constitutes compliance with the requirement."

1. Reading those two sections together, as in my view they should be read, the obligation imposed by s.214 to produce documents is deemed to oblige "the person to produce or make available for inspection, as the case may be, a writing that reproduces the information in a form capable of being understood". The requirement is then not to hand over the computer itself but to produce a writing that reproduces the information in the computer. In order for there to be a failure to comply with such a requirement, the request should be made in terms which make it clear that that is what is required. A person cannot fail to comply with a requirement under s.214 unless he understands or should understand what he is being required to do.

2. I am satisfied that Mr Pride never understood that he was being asked to produce a print-out of all the information on the applicants' computer. How could he understand that? The s.214 notices did not refer to the computer and Mr Madden did not explain that he intended to encompass by the request for "documents" set out in the s.214 notices a print-out of the computerised information. Accordingly, on this further ground, the seizure of the computer was invalid.

3. I shall direct that counsel bring in within 14 days short minutes of orders accordingly.