What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

United KingdomCase Law

CPS blanket extradition SAR refusal unlawful, yet no order

NCA one-day delay trivial and all data now served; Steyn J refuses section 167 compliance orders where the extradition file already holds everything.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 9 November 2026

Legal & Corporate

Industry: Justice and judicial activities

A blanket refusal of a law-enforcement subject access request cannot stand where the material has already been disclosed in the underlying proceedingsNationalarchives, but the court will still refuse a compliance order where there is nothing left to discloseNationalarchives. Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Robert Westbrook's Part 8 claims against the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime AgencyNationalarchives for orders under s.167 of the Data Protection Act 2018Nationalarchives.

Westbrook is sought for extradition to the United StatesNationalarchives. The NCA arrested him on 26 September 2024 and brought him before Westminster Magistrates' Court the same day. The District Judge ruled in January 2026 and the Secretary of State ordered extradition in February 2026 on charges of unauthorised computer access. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers in August 2026. Westbrook sent a subject access request to the CPS on 13 April 2026 for all documents the CPS sent to any court in the extradition case, and to the NCA on 27 April 2026 for all NCA and police documents put before judges between September 2024 and January 2026. Both requests were made under s.45 in Part 3 of the 2018 Act, the law-enforcement processing regimeNationalarchives.

The CPS answered the second request with a wholesale refusalNationalarchives, relying on the exemptions in s.45(4)(b) and (e)Nationalarchives without any item-by-item analysisNationalarchives. The blanket use of the prejudice-to-prosecution exemption cannot be justified for information already disclosed to the requester after the hearingNationalarchives: giving a person material they already hold cannot risk prejudicing criminal proceedings so as to make withholding necessary and proportionateNationalarchives. The rights-of-others exemption supports redaction, not wholesale withholdingNationalarchives, and non-personal material such as legal authorities is only ever a partial answer. A collateral litigation purpose does not invalidate a request, and the extradition disclosure route makes no difference. The CPS omitted notice of the s.167 court rightNationalarchives, but Westbrook knew of and used itNationalarchives, so no corrective order was neededNationalarchives.

An infringement is only the starting point for a discretionary, proportionate order. The order was refused against the CPSNationalarchives because the extradition proceedings, with the duty of candour, are the proper routeNationalarchives, and liaison with foreign states reinforces that. Everything filed with the court was served on WestbrookNationalarchives: his belief that material reached the judge behind his back is sincere but baselessNationalarchives, the trial judge decided only on served materialNationalarchives, nothing went ex parte, and unserved material cannot reach the court without a without-notice application. Ordering an item-by-item re-analysis of the whole court file would spend public resources for no benefit, and his real quest is for documents for the extradition fight rather than his personal data as such.

The NCA answered one day after the one-month deadlineNationalarchives, which is trivial and needs no orderNationalarchives. It provided two non-responsive photographs, withheld four court documents under the obstruct-inquiry exemptionNationalarchives, then provided them on 2 November 2026 with two further items. The court did not decide whether the original exemption was lawfulNationalarchives, since nothing remains withheldNationalarchives. Arguments that more is held fail: a wider review pool proves nothing, the omitted third-party-provided statement is regrettable but not decisive, and the later statement has not been shown to be held by the NCANationalarchives. The NCA breached the duty to record its reasons at the timeNationalarchives, but an internal review later recorded themNationalarchives, so no recording order is neededNationalarchives.

The claims turn on Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018Nationalarchives, especially ss.45, 54, 167 and 180A, applied in Westbrook v Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency [2026] EWHC 2879 (KB)Nationalarchives, following Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens [2017] EWCA Civ 121.

Answer law-enforcement access requests item by item rather than by blanket exemption, and route court-file complaints through the underlying proceedings.

Sources

Robert Westbrook v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor