Officers conducting a search presented a two paged document headed ‘warrant to enter and search premises’ which set out all the information required by section 15(6)(a). It did not, however, on its face identify the articles or persons to be sought in sub-paragraph (b). That information was contained in a separate schedule.
Held: The court rejected the submission that the former document constituted the warrant and the latter a distinct schedule which was independent of the warrant. The warrant was both documents taken together.
Police officers have no right to retain for evidence material which had been improperly seized.
So long as the schedule identifying the premises is attached to the warrant authorising the search, the warrant satisfies the requirements of section 15.
Nolan LJ said: ‘It will be seen that the two-paged document satisfies the requirements of para (a), and it is common ground that the one-paged document, the schedule, satisfied the requirements of para (b), so that taken together they constitute a warrant which complies with the provisions of sub-s(6). Taken separately, neither of them does so.’ As to the purpose of producing two certified copies, he said: ‘the need for two certified copies of the warrant is explicable in the following way. A copy has to be served on the occupier or left at the premises and the occupier needs a copy whose authenticity does not depend on the word of the police. For their part the police need to be able to retain an authentic copy for record purposes lest any question should arise over the legality of the warrant and its execution. They also should be able to rely on a copy for whose authenticity they are not responsible.’
Judges:
Nolan LJ and Jowitt J
Citations:
Gazette 27-May-1992, [1993] QB 577, [1993] 2 All ER 56, [1993] 2 WLR 428
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 22(2)(a)
Cited by:
Cited – Global Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .
Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86353
