Lord Denning MR said that a constable equipped with a search warrant: ‘may seize not only the goods which he reasonably to be covered by the warrant, but also any other goods which he believes on reasonable grounds to have been stolen and to be material evidence on a charge of stealing or receiving against the person in possession of them or anyone associated with him.’
Salmon LJ: ‘If the preservation of law and order requires that a policeman shall have the power to arrest a man whom he believes on reasonable grounds to be a thief or a receiver, it is difficult to understand why the policeman should not have the power to seize goods on that man’s premises which the policeman believes on reasonable grounds that he has stolen or received’
Police officers had entered the plaintiff’s shop premises armed with a search warrant authorising them to search for goods stolen from A. They found none of A’s goods there, but did find and seize goods which they believed on reasonable grounds to have been stolen from B, C and D. They had no warrant to seize these goods, and there was no previous decided case which indicated that they were entitled to do so. The plaintiff said they had acted unlawfully.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘unless forced to do so by recent binding authority, I decline to accept that a police officer who is unquestionably justified at common law in arresting a person whom he has reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of receiving stolen goods, is not likewise justified in the less draconian act of seizing what he, on reasonable grounds, believes to be the stolen goods in that person’s possession.’
Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ
[1968] QB 299, [1967] EWCA Civ 4, (1968) 132 JP 175, [1968] 1 All ER 229, [1968] 2 WLR 201
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others Admn 29-Sep-2006
The respondent had objected that the appointment of an interim receiver had been based upon information obtained in the course of investigations undertaken in connection with different proceedings and allegations.
Held: The enforcement agency . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Torts – Other
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.247610