Investigation in UK Law

(3) The information which causes the constable to be suspicious of the individual must be in existence to the knowledge of the police officer at the time he makes the arrest. (3) The information which causes the constable to be suspicious of the individual must be in existence to the knowledge of the police officer at the time he makes the arrest.

The information acted on by the arresting officer need not be based on his own observations, as he is entitled to form a suspicion based on what he has been told. The information acted on by the arresting officer need not be based on his own observations, as he is entitled to form a suspicion based on what he has been told.

I wish to stress, however, that the judge must first be satisfied that the warrant with which he is dealing is a Part 1 warrant within the meaning of section 2(2). A warrant which does not contain the statements referred to in that subsection cannot be eked out by extraneous information. The requirements of section 2(2) are mandatory. If they are not met, the warrant is not a Part 1 warrant and the remaining provisions of that Part of the Act will not apply to it.

At the gathering of information stage no caution of any kind need be administered. The final stage, the one contemplated by Rule 3 of the Judges' Rules, is when the Police Officer has got enough (and I stress the word 'enough') evidence to prefer a charge. That is clear from the introduction to the Judges' Rules which sets out the principle.

It will be noticed that Mr Justice Horridge relied on the fact that the documents were used in evidence at the trial. But I cannot think that is a necessary condition to justify their seizure. It may often happen that, on investigation, the prosecution decide not to go on with the case. The seizure must be justified at the time, irrespective of whether the case goes to trial or not. It cannot be made lawful or unlawful according to what happens afterwards.

In my opinion, when a constable enters a house by virtue of a search warrant for stolen goods, he may seize not only the goods which he reasonably believes 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.

Immunities conferred by the law in respect of legal proceedings need always to be checked against a broad view of the public interest. So checked, the present case provides no justification for protecting absolutely what the solicitor said in the court.