IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No HQ15X02569 BENCH DIVISION BETWEEN: (1) SATISH CHATWANI (2) JAWAHAR CHATWANI (3) BHASKER TAILOR (4) RAKESH TAILOR (5) RASHMI CHATWANI (6) DAKSHA CHATWANI (7) HANSA CHATWANI (8) SHILPA CHATWANI (9) RAKSHA TAILOR (10) PRAVINA GULABIVALA (11) DAVIS AND DANN LIMITED (12) FAIRVIEW HOTELS AND HEALTHCARE LIMITED (13) KANTA ENTERPRISES LIMITED Claimants and - THE NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM THE PARTIES 1. The Defendant is and was at all relevant times the National Crime Agency, an agency created by section 1(1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and is a public authority for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. 2. The Defendant was, at all relevant times, vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its officers referred to in these Particulars of Claim who were, throughout, acting in the performance or purported performance of their func?ons. 3. The First, Second and Fifth Claimants are brothers. These three Claimants are all qualified accountants and of good character. At all relevant times they jointly owned and/or were Directors of a group of 41 companies, including the Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth Claimants, with an annual turnover in excess of ?49 million, The head office for the group was at all relevant times located at Kanta 1 10. House, Victoria Road, Ruislip, HA4 OJQ (?Kanta House?). The Fifth Claimant is the Managing Director of the Eleventh Claimant. The Third and Fourth Claimants are brothers. They are both of good character. The Third Claimant is a qualified chartered accountant and was, at all relevant times, the group financial controller for all the companies in Kanta Group as well as the Company Secretary for the Twelfth Claimant. The Fourth Claimant was at all relevant times the General Manager of the Eleventh Claimant. The Sixth Claimant is the wife of the Fifth Claimant. At all relevant times the Fifth and Sixth Claimants were the owners, and entitled to possession, of a residential property at Cariad, Sarratt Lane, Loudwater, Rickmansworth, WD3 4A8 (?Cariad?). The Seventh Claimant is the wife of the First Claimant. At all relevant times the First and Seventh Claimants were the owners, and entitled to possession, of a residential property at 318 Bedford Road, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 2AY (?318 Bedford Road?). The Eighth Claimant is the wife of the Second Claimant. At all relevant times the Second and Eighth Claimants were the owners, and entitled to possession, ofa residential property at 58 Wolsey Road, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 2EH (?58 Wolsey Road?). The Ninth Claimant is the wife of the Third Claimant. At all relevant times the Third and Ninth Claimants were the owners, and entitled to possession, of a residential property at 157 Colin Crescent, London, NW9 6ET (?157 Colin Crescent?). The Tenth Claimant is the wife of the Fourth Claimant. At all relevant times the Fourth and Tenth Claimants were the owners, and entitled to possession, of a residential property at 42 Hill View Road, Pinner, HA5 4PA (?42 Hill View Road?). The Eleventh Claimant?s core business is trading in a wide range of fast bulk moving consumables, with an annual turnover of around ?49 million. At all relevant times it was the leasehold owner, occupied and was entitled to 2 it. ?12. possession of Kanta House. The Seventh Ciairnant received two Queen?s Awards, in ?3997 and 2082. The Tweifth Ciaimant owns and manages six hoteis, incinding the Mercure Londen Binomsoury Hotel, tSG-t 34 Seuthampton Raw, SAF (?Mereure London Bicentenary?), and has an annuai turnover of around ?10 mitiion. At at! reieirant times it had its headquarters and offices at Kanta Hesse. The Twelfth Ciairnant is owned by Lonwar industries internationai Limited, which is owned in turn by the Lonwar Trust. The First, Secend and Fifth Biatrnants are equal discretienary bene?ciaries of the Lonwar Trust. The Thirteenth Ciaimant at reievant times had its headquarters and offices at Kanta House. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Operation Heteroden 13. i4. ?35. in 2014, the Defendant commenced an investigation inte money ianndering, knewn as Operation Heterocien. ivir Srian Hickman was at reievant times an officer of the Defendant and the Senior investigating Officer in charge of Operation Heterodon. Mr Kevin was at relevant times an officer of the Defendant and the senior financier! investigator for Operation Heterodon, By Geteber 2014, Mr Hickman was centernpiating obtaining search warrants in relation to Kanta Hesse, arresting the First to Fifth Ciairnants and, during the time they were being held after arrest, piecing covert devices in Kanta House The Defendant?s etiioers trad concluded that the best way to depioy the cavert devices was during the execution of a search warrant. On 22 December 2814, Mr Hickman teak the decision in arrest the First tn Fifth Claimants, and twe other suspects. Mr Hickman resented that the arrests were To maximise the epporinnity of gathering further evidence train interviews and searches. in take aetien against persons who were engaged in nniawtui laundering 3 16. 17. of criminal monies. In early January 2015, an officer of the Defendant, Ms Victoria Wilde, produced an operational policy document for Operation Heterodon, at the request of Mr Hickman, entitled ?Operation Heteredon (sic): Interview Strategy? (?the Interview Strategy Document?). The document was approved by Mr Hickman and senior officers of the Defendant. The Interview Strategy Document recorded that: (1) The main objective around the planned arrests and interviews of the First to Fifth Claimants was not primarily to focus on the gathering of evidence but to provoke a behavioural reaction on their release from custody to allow for the capturing of unequivocal evidence which would enhance any prosecution against them. (2) In the interview there would be no challenge to accounts given but rather a set pattern of topics and questions. (3) During interview, the First to Fifth Claimants would be provided with sufficient disclosure to infer what the investigation was about without the full facts being disclosed, so as to prompt conversations between one another on release. (4) It was necessary for the First to Fifth Claimants to be held in custody for a set period of time to allow for technical equipment to be installed in some premises. Application for the warrants 18. On 19 January 2015, Mr Andrew Gozzer, an officer of the Defendant, applied to Birmingham Magistrates? Court for eight search warrants, under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Six of the search warrants (?the Warrants?) related to the following properties: (1) Kanta House; (2) Cariad; (3) 318 Bedford Road; (4) 58 Wolsey Road; (5) 157 Colin Crescent; (6) 42 Hill View Road. 19. 20. 21. 22. The applications were made on the basis of the application notices and informations. No other documents were presented to the Justices. The Warrants authorised the Defendant?s officers, holding the powers of a constable, to search for ?Evidence of money laundering namely monies, documentary records in paper and electronic format, mobile telephones and other electronic communication and storage devices.? On 23 January 2015, the Defendant applied to the Birmingham Crown Court for a production order in respect of material held at the Eleventh Claimant?s auditors. On 26 January 2015, authorisation was obtained, pursuant to sections 93 to 97 of the Police Act 1997, to install surveillance devices at Kanta House (?the Authorisation?). Execution of the warrant at Kanta House and arrests of the First to Fourth Claimants 23. 24. 25. 26. On 28 January 2015, at around 10.25am, approximately 100 of the Defendants officers entered Kanta House to execute the search warrant. After entering Kanta House, the Defendant?s officers disabled the CCTV and installed 8 covert surveillance devices at 5 locations. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, the First, Third and Fourth Claimants were arrested by the Defendant?s officers at Kanta House. The First Claimant was arrested at 10.36am, the Third Claimant at 10.26am and the Fourth Claimant at 10.30am. All three Claimants were handcuffed. They were detained upstairs in Kanta House for a period of around 20 minutes, were walked through the open plan office in front of their employees, and then held downstairs in the reception area for a period of around 15 minutes. They were further held in the police van in the car park for 15 minutes before being transported to Heathrow Police Station (?the Police Station?). The First Claimant arrived at the Police Station at 12.15pm, the 5 27, 28, 29. 30. 31. Third Ciaimant at and The Faerie Cieimani at 12.20pm. 0n the same day, at imam, the Ciaimani was arrested at the Menage Loadee Bieemebary and Taken to the S?iatiee, where he arrived at 3.189133. The Firei to Fourth Ciaimaete were iaterviewed between 4.31 and 10.38pm. The First Ciaimant was intewiewed between 431 and 6.42pm, The Secend Claimant betweea 7.46 and 9.39pm, the Third Ciaimaai between 9.41 and 16.18917: and the Fearih Ciaimani between 832 and 9.29536. Between 122$ and 3.449313, the Fire: to Fourth Ciaimants? deieniiee was purportediy authorised. The First Ciaimant?a detention was purpe?eeiy authorised at 1.33pm, The Second Ciaimaat a: 3,44pm, the Third Ciaimani at 12.29pm and the Feurth Ciaimani ai 12.26pm. The reasoa for detentien was recorded as ?to ebiain evidence by questiening, ta secure and preserve evideece? fer the First and Feurth Ciaimants and ?to obtain evidence by questioning? for The Second and Thin Ciaimants. 0a 29 January 29%, the Fire: 19 Fannie Ciaimaais wefe Tram deieniiee at the Peiice Station: (1) The First Claimant was at 12.20am, having been detained fer around 34 heme, (2) The Second Ciaimaai was ai 12.87am, having been detained for amend ii hours, (3) The Third Ciaimani was reieased at 12.19am, having been detained for around 14 hears. (4) The Fourth Ciaimantwae released at 12,183m, having been deiained fer amend 14 hours. On 29 January 2935, at amend Beware, the Defendan?i?s ef?eere ie? Kama Heuee having beer: en the premises for around ?37.5 hours. Large quantities ef maieriai were seizee frem the Seventh ie Thi?eemh Ciaimants, ineiudieg eve? 590 bags of documents. Te the exieni a iist of the items seized is set out in the Scheduie of Seizee Property is these of Ciaim. Execution of the warrants at the residential properties 32January 2015, between 10.30 and 11.30am, the Defendant?s officers attended the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties to execute the Warrants. The Defendant?s officers arrived at Cariad at 10.35am, at 31 Bedford Road at 10.27am, at 58 Wolsey Road around 10.25am, at 157 Colin Crescent at 10.37am and at 42 Hill View Road at 11.25am. Approximately 10-12 officers attended Cariad, 12 officers attended 31 Bedford Road, 10-12 officers attended 58 Wolsey Road and 6-8 officers attended 157 Colin Crescent. The Fourth and Tenth Claimants were not present when the Defendant?s officers attended 42 Hill View Road. The Sixth to Ninth Claimants were not permitted to leave the premises during the searches. The Defendant?s officers left Cariad at 5.50pm, 318 Bedford Road at 10.00pm, 58 Wolsey Road around 5.00pm, 157 Colin Crescent at 3.50pm and 42 Hill View Road at 2.30pm. Substantial quantities of items were removed from those premises including personal items; and jewellery which was seized from Cariad, 31 Bedford Road, and Kanta House. Jewellery at Kanta House belonged to the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Claimants and was kept in the safe for security. To the extent possible, a list of the items seized is set out in Schedule of Seized Property to these Particulars of Claim. The CCTV cameras at Cariad and 318 Bedford Road were disabled by the Defendant?s officers. Arrest of the Fifth Claimant and Removal of Surveillance Devices 37. 38. On 29 January 2015, the First Claimant?s legal representatives recommended that, following the execution of the Warrants, Kanta House and the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties should be swept for surveillance devices. On 30 January 2015, the Fifth Claimant?s legal representatives informed the 7 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Defendant that he would voluntarily surrender and cooperate with its inves?ga?ons. On 31 January 2015, the Fifth Claimant returned to the UK, having been in Dubai on business. The Defendant was aware that the Fifth Claimant was returning to the UK and had a surveillance team waiting for him at Heathrow airport on that date. The surveillance team followed the Fifth Claimant to his residential property, Cariad. On 2 February 2015, the First and Fourth Claimants met with an investigator. It was agreed that the investigator would commence sweeping the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties for covert surveillance devices that day and to sweep Kanta House on 7 and 8 February 2015. The conversation between the Fourth Claimant and the investigator was captured by surveillance devices put in place by the Defendant and resulted in a decision by the Defendant to remove the devices at the next available opportunity. On 4 February 2015, the Defendant wrote to the Claimants? solicitors notifying them that they proposed to make an application to the Birmingham Crown Court under section 59(6) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It is to be inferred that, by that stage, the Defendant appreciated that the Warrants were unlawful: On 5 February 2015, at 7.50pm, the Fifth Claimant was arrested outside Kanta House and taken to the Police Station, where he arrived at 8.30pm. Following the arrest the Defendant?s officers entered Kanta House for the purpose of removing the covert surveillance devices, which had been placed there on 28 and 29 January 2015. The surveillance devices were duly removed. At 9.05pm, the Fifth Claimant?s detention was purportedly authorised. The reason for detention was recorded as ?to obtain evidence by questioning, to secure or preserve evidence.? On 6 February 2015, the Fifth Claimant was interviewed between 12.48 and 8 46. 3.04am. He was reieased at 42?! am, having been detained for around 8.5 hours. The First to Fifth Claimants were to return or; 21 duty 2015. Go that day, the First to Fifth Claimants were reieased from bait Previous iegai proceedings 47. 48. 49, 50. Go 13 May 2015, the Divisional Court of the Queen?s Bench Division of the High Court (?the Divisional Court?) granted a deoiaraiion ihei ihe production order was uniawfui. On 14 May 2015, the Divisiohai Cour! quashed the Warrants oh the grounds that: (2) (3) The precondition of section PACE, ihai there were reasonabie grounds for suspeoiing that an iodioiabie offense had been committed, were not set out in the and the of section PACE, that there were reasonable grounds for beiieviog that the material sought did not include iegaiiy ori'viieged materiai, was not satisfied, Contrary to sections 15(2)(a) and (6X13) PACE, the warrants faiied i0 specify, so far as practicabie, the maieriai and iiems is be sought, and faiied to give particularity with regard to the persons, dates and transactions known to the investigators. Contrary to section 16(8) PACE, the searches of the premises exceeded the extent required for ihe purpose for whioh the warrants were issued. in addition, the Defendant faiied to disclose to the Justices the proposal of using the opportunity of the execution of the search warrant at Kania House to piaot covert devices. The Divisions! Court made a declaratioo that the entries of the Ciaimanis? premises, and the searches of and seizures from the Ciaimanis? premises, on 28 and 2Q January 2015 were uoiawioi. The Court ordered, inter aiia, the return of seized items seized monies oios interest 0o 20 Juiy .2915 the Authorisation was quashed by order of the investigatory Powers Trihuoai FALSE IMPRISONMENT 51. 52. The First to Fifth Claimants were wrongfully arrested by the Defendant?s officers and/or at the direction of the Defendant?s of?cer, Mr Hickman, and were unlawfully detained for periods of approximately 14, 11, 14, 14 and 8.5 hours respectively. Without prejudice to the fact that the burden of justifying the First to Fifth Claimants? arrests and detention is on the Defendant, the First to Fifth Claimants will rely on the following in support of the contention that they were wrongfully arrested and detained: (1) The arresting officers did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the First to Fifth Claimants had committed the offence of money laundering. The information provided to the arresting officers through the ?Briefing to Arresting Officers? document, attached as Appendix 1 to the lnterview Strategy Document, and at the oral briefing on 28 January 2015, was purposefully restricted to ensure the ?integrity? of the plan. The information was insufficient to provide reasonable grounds for the arresting officers themselves to suspect that the First to Fifth Claimants had committed the offence of money laundering. Further, or alternatively, the Defendant did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the First to Fifth Claimants had committed a criminal offence. The Defendant?s suspicions were based on two strands of evidence, neither of which provided reasonable grounds for suspecting that the First to Fifth Claimants had been involved in money laundering: A connection between the Fifth Claimant and Mr Harvinder Batth, who was convicted of money laundering offences in 2008. Following his release from prison, the Fifth Claimant gave Mr Batth a job at the Eleventh Claimant and arranged for him to receive some financial assistance. Mr Batth was observed meeting with the Fifth and Fourth Claimants on one occasion. Mr Batth was associated with Mr Cliff Tarr, who was also the subject of investigation. Mr Tarr had been observed visiting Kanta House and referred to the Fifth Claimant in conversations recorded by covert monitoring devices. There were no grounds for suspecting that the First, Second and Third Claimants had any connection 10 (3) (4) with Mr Batth or Mr Tarr. The transfer of monies, including monies which had been obtained from a phishing scam on an academy school into the Eleventh Claimant?s bank account. The monies were first transferred into a bank account held by Tibirjkovs Limited before being dispersed into 20 separate accounts. One of the beneficiaries of 2 of these payments transferred money to the Eleventh Claimant through an intermediate company. This money was paid in the normal course of trading and there were no grounds for suspecting that the First to Fifth Claimants had any knowledge or suspicion of the origin of these monies. Furthermore, the Defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing the arrests of the First to Fifth Claimants were necessary for the prompt and effective investigation of the alleged offence or for any other reason under section 24 of PACE in that: It was not necessary to arrest the First to Fifth Claimants ?to maximise the opportunity of gathering further evidence from interviews or searches.? The First to Fifth Claimants would have attended interviews voluntarily. The Defendant did not consider whether voluntary attendance was a practical alternative. Had it done so the proper conclusion would have been that it was not necessary to arrest the First to Fifth Claimants. The Fifth Claimant had volunteered to surrender to the Police Station and to cooperate with the Defendant?s investigations. Further, the decision to arrest the First to Fifth Claimants was made by the Defendant?s officer, Mr Hickman, and was unlawful in public law in that: (G) Mr Hickman failed to consider or properly consider any other less intrusive ways to deal with the First to Fifth Claimants short of arrest. Mr Hickman decided to arrest the First to Fifth Claimants not for the proper purpose of obtaining evidence by interview but for the improper purpose of ?provoking a behavioural reaction? from them. Mr Hickman decided that the First to Fourth Claimants should be arrested and detained not to allow for the prompt and effective 11 53. 54, investigation of the offence but: To remove the First, Third and te Fourth Claimants from Kanta House so that covert surveillance devices could be installed without their knowledge, (ii) So that they could be provided with sufficient information to provoke a reaction from them that would then be captured on covert surveillance devices. The Fifth Claimant was arrested for the improper purpose of providing an opportunity to remove the covert surveillance devices from Kanta House. (5) Further, following completion of their interviews, the First to Fourth Claimants were detained for the improper purpose of allowing the Defendant?s officers sufficient time to install the covert surveillance devices at Kanta House. The Sixth to Ninth Claimants were wrongfully detained whilst unlawful searches were being conducted at their residential properties in that they were prevented from leaving the residential properties by the Defendant?s officers. Without prejudice to the fact that the burden of justifying the Sixth to Ninth Claimants? detention is on the Defendant, the Sixth to Ninth Claimants will rely on the fact that the searches were unlawful. ASSAULT AND BATTERY 55. 56. The handcuffing of the First, Third and Fourth Claimants constituted assaults and batteries. Without prejudice to the Defendant?s obligation to prove the lawfulness of all force used, the use of handcuffs on the First, Third and Fourth Claimants was an unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive use of force in that that there was no objective basis for believing that the First, Third or Fourth Claimants would escape, attempt to escape or use violence. The Claimants will, if necessary, rely on the Association of Chief Police Officer?s Guidance on the Use of Handcuffs as setting out the circumstances in which handcuffs can reasonably and properly be used to restrain suspects. 12 TRESPASS TO LAND 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. The entry onto and search of Kanta House, from 28 to 29 January 2015, was unlawful in that: (1) The entry onto and search did not comply with sections 15 and 16 of PACE and was unlawful as provided for by section 15(1) of and/or (2) The Warrants were quashed by the Divisional Court and were therefore unlawful from the outset and could not provide any authority for entry or search; and (3) The Authorisation and approval was quashed by the and was therefore unlawful from the outset and could not provide any authority for entry. As a result, the Defendant?s officers were trespassers in Kanta House for a period of approximately 17.5 hours on 28 and 29 January 2015 and the Eleventh Claimant is entitled to damages for trespass. Further, on 5 February 2015, the Defendant?s officers wrongfully entered onto and remained in Kanta House from 7.00 to 9.30pm following the wrongful arrest of the Fifth Claimant. As a result, the Defendant?s officers were trespassers in Kanta House for a period of approximately 2.5 hours on 5 February 2015 and the Eleventh Claimant is entitled to damages for trespass. Further, the entry onto and search of the residential properties of the First to Tenth Claimants on 28 January 2015 was unlawful for the reasons set out in paragraph 57(1) and (2) above. In these circumstances: (1) The Defendant?s officers were trespassers in Cariad for a period of around 7.5 hours and the Fifth and Sixth Claimants claim damages for trespass to land. (2) The Defendant?s officers were trespassers in 31B Bedford Road for a period of around 11.5 hours and the First and Seventh Claimants claim damages for trespass to land. 13 (3) The Defendant?s officers were trespassers in 58 Wolsey Road for a period of around 6.5 hours and the Second and Eighth Claimants claim damages for trespass to land. (4) The Defendant?s of?cers were trespassers in 157 Colin Crescent for a period of around 5.5 hours and the Second and Eighth Claimants claim damages for trespass to land. (5) The Defendant's officers were trespassers in 42 Hill View Road for a period of around 3 hours and the Fourth and Tenth Claimants claim damages for trespass to land. WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS 63. 64. 65. The Defendant?s officers wrongfully interfered with the property of the First to Tenth Claimants at their residential properties and the property of the Eleventh to Thirteenth Claimants at Kanta House, and wrongfully interfered with the seized property by taking it from the residential properties and Kanta House and retaining it. The property seized from the residential properties belonged to, and was in the possession of, the First to Tenth Claimants and the property seized from Kanta House belonged to, and was in the possession of, the Eleventh to Thirteenth Claimants. Particulars of the property that was damaged during the searches and/or seized and damaged are set out in the Schedule of Loss and Expense to these Particulars of Claim. On 30 January 2015 the First to Fifth Claimants? legal representatives requested the return of seized property. Subsequent requests were made including on 3 February 2015. On 17 February 2015, following an application for interim relief, the Queen?s Bench Division ordered that all seized property should be moved into secure storage and the Claimants permitted to retrieve items from storage once copies had been taken. Despite numerous requests, electronic equipment was not returned until after the conclusion ofjudicial review proceedings, over3 months later. Costs incurred by the Claimants in replacing that electronic equipment are outlined in the Schedule of Loss and Expense to these Particulars of Claim. 14 66. 67. Further and/or alternatively, itemswere seized in excess of those authorised by the search warrants: (1) The briefing document, or operation order, provided to the scene search supervisors (?Operation Order?) set out that the following material should be seized: Large amounts of cash (more than ?1000 BOE or equivalent); Handwritten lists of amounts of cash; Mobile telephones; Data storage devices; (9) Details of all bank/building society accounts to be recorded within search booklet; Documentation relating to business, properties and vehicles; (9) Telephone directory Kanta House; Diamonds; (0 (J) Safety deposit box keys/references; High Value items Jewelry (sic) Etc. (2) The search scene officers were not provided with copies of the search warrants. The Operation Order provided to the search scene officers on 27 January 2015 stated that the list of items to be seized was not prescriptive and relied on the officer?s initiative. Further and/or alternatively, having entered Kanta House and the residential properties, the Defendant became a trespasser ab initio through the subsequent unlawful act of seizing items in excess of those authorised by the Warrants. BREACH OF ARTICLE 8 OF EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 68. 69. Further and in any event, the arrests of the First to Fifth Claimants, the detention of the Sixth to Ninth Claimants and the entry onto and searches of the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties constituted an interference with the rights of the First to Tenth Claimants to respect for their private and family lives, home and reputations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (?the and was unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The First to Tenth Claimants will rely, in particular on the following facts and matters as constituting interference with their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR: 15 70. (1) The entry into the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties and the searching of their personal possessions. (2) The presence of state officials, namely the Defendant?s officers, in the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties for periods. (3) The arrests of the First, Third and Fourth Claimants in the presence of employees of the Eleventh to Thirteenth Claimants at Kanta House. (4) The damage to the reputations of the First to Fifth Claimants caused by their arrests on serious criminal charges in the circumstances set out above. Further, and without prejudice to the burden of proof (which rests on the Defendant in this regard), there was no or no legitimate justification under Article 8(2) of the ECHR for the acts complained of and the resulting intrusion into the Claimants? private and family lives. The Claimants will rely on the following: (1) The entry and search of the First to Tenth Claimants? residential properties was not necessary or proportionate in all the Circumstances. (2) The arrest and detention of the First to Fifth Claimants was not necessary or proportionate in all the circumstances. In relation to the unlawful acts set out at above, the First to Tenth Claimants are victims for the purposes of section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. DAMAGES 72. 73. By reason of the matters set out above the First to Ninth Claimants were deprived of their liberty and the First to Tenth Claimants suffered loss, damage, distress, shock, anxiety, damage to their reputations and interference with their dignity. The First to Eleventh Claimants are entitled to damages for trespass to land and the Claimants are entitled to damages for trespass to goods. Further, as a result of the unlawful acts of the Defendant set out above, the Claimants suffered special damage. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE (1) The Claimants had to replace items of property that had been seized and retained and property that was or might have been damaged by the 16 Defendant. Full details are set out in the Schedule of Loss and Expense to these Particulars of Claim. (2) The Eleventh to Thirteenth Claimants suffered disruption to their businesses and the Eleventh Claimant suffered financial loss as a result of the seizure of business records, including invoices, bills of lading and documentation required for tax purposes. (3) The First, Second and Fifth Claimants are beneficiaries of the Lonwar Trust which owns, inter alia, the Twelfth Claimant. The Lonwar Trust was established on 30 January 1997 and at all relevant times payments have been made at the request of the beneficiaries. In early 2015, the Twelfth Claimant?s bankers, Coutts, had agreed to provide it with a facility to enable it to purchase the Cheltenham Park Hotel. As a result of the execution of the Warrants and the arrests of the First, Second and Fifth Claimants, Coutts withdrew the lending facility. This withdrawal was caused by the damage to the reputations of the First, Second and Fifth Claimants which resulted from the wrongful acts of the Defendant. Due to the withdrawal of the facility by Coutts, the purchase of the hotel could not proceed. If the transaction had proceeded it would have increased the value of the Twelfth Claimant and, hence, the value of the assets of the Lonwar Trust by the estimated sum of?12,941,212 which sum would, in the ordinary course, have been paid to the First, Second and Fifth Claimants as beneficiaries of the Lonwar Trust. Full details of this claim are set out in the Schedule of Loss and Expense to these Particulars of Claim. (4) The Eleventh and Thirteenth Claimants had to pay an lT consultant to replace and repair computer and CCTV equipment removed, damage or interfered with by the Defendant. Further, the Eleventh and Thirteenth Claimants wasted staff and management time in dealing with disruption to their business caused by the unlawful acts of the Defendants and in retrieving unlawfully removed property. Full details of this claim are set out in the Schedule of Loss and Expense to these Particulars of Claim. 74. The First to Tenth Claimants will rely on the following in support of their claims for general and aggravated damages: (1) The Defendant?s officers seized personal items, including diamonds and jewellery, from the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Claimants, 17 75. 76. (2) (3) (5) in excess of the authority granted by the Warrants. The Defendant?s officers refused to remove their footwear when searching the Second and Eighth Claimants? residential property, despite being requested to do so, especially when entering religious rooms in the property. The Defendant?s officers used dogs to search 318 Bedford Road. They allowed the dogs to sniff personal items and the occupants of 318 Bedford Road, including an elderly and sick relative who was staying with the First and Seventh Claimant at the time. The fact that the Defendant wholly failed to follow proper procedure in applying for the Warrants or Authorisation and failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure to the courts, including but not limited to the failure to inform the Justices that the Claimants were of good character; (ii) that the Defendant planned to use the search of Kanta House as an opportunity to install covert surveillance devices; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that there would be items subject to legal privilege and/or special procedure material at Kanta House and (iv) that the First to Fifth Claimants had an unblemished record with the HMRC. Mr Hickman, had read a judgment from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), of 6 August 2013, allowing the Eleventh Claimant?s appeal following a civil investigation by the HMRC. The fact that the Defendant has failed to acknowledge that the Claimants were wrongfully arrested and detained and their residential properties wrongfully searched. The fact that the Defendant has failed to make any apology in respect of the wrongful arrests, detention and searches as set out above. As a result of the failures pleaded at sub?paragraphs (5) and (6), the First to Tenth Claimants? damage is continuing. Further, the actions of the Defendant?s officers referred to above were oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the Claimants claim exemplary damages. The Claimants will rely on the facts set out at paragraphs 51?71 and 74 above. The Claimants are entitled to and claim interest pursuant to Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the amounts found due to them at such rate and for 18 such period as the Court thinks tit. AND the Claimants claim: (1) Damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages. (2) interest pursuant to section 35A of the Seniors Courts Act 1981, to be assessed. HUGH TOMLINSON QC BART CASELLA JOANNA BUCKLEY Dated this day of August 2015 The Claimants believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim and the attached Schedules are true. am duly authorised by the Claimants to sign these Particulars of Claim. Signed: .. Full Name: SONIA AHMAD Position: Solicitor at Neumans LLP 19