Allan v Tant
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1986 SCCR 175 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 05 March 1986 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L.J.-C. Ross, Lords Robertson, Brand.
Evidence—Competency—Search of premises under warrant granted by justice of peace—Whether evidence obtained under warrant admissible—Whether sheriff entitled to review adequacy of grounds for granting warrant.
An accused person was charged with an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. At his trial evidence was led that a quantity of opium had been found in premises occupied by him. The opium had been found during a search carried out by police under a warrant granted by a justice of the peace under sec. 23 (3) of the said Act. That provision authorises the issue of a warrant when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the presence of controlled drugs in any premises. The sheriff conducting the trial held that neither the police who applied for the warrant nor the justice of the peace had had reasonable grounds for suspecting the presence of drugs in the premises in question. He ruled that the evidence relating to the opium was therefore inadmissible and upheld a defence submission of no case to answer. The Crown appealed.
Held, that, the sheriff was not entitled to go behind an ex facie valid warrant and review the granting of it; and appealallowed.
Michael Norman Tant was charged on complaint at the sheriff court at Edinburgh with possession of a controlled drug in contravention of sec. 5 (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the sheriff (Macvicar, Q.C.) upheld a submission by the defence, under sec. 345(A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, that there was no case to answer. The Crown appealed by stated case.
In the case the sheriff stated inter alia:—"The evidence for the prosecution was to the following effect. At about 9 p.m. on Thursday, 8th November 1984, two police officers of Lothian and Borders Police, Woman Police Constable McLean, and Police Constable Mackenzie, went to a house at 69/8 Wester Hailes Drive, Edinburgh, where they had reason to believe that they might find one Graham Tant (who is a brother of the respondent). Neither officer knew who were the occupiers of, or residents at, the said house. The only persons in the house when the officers arrived there were two brothers by the name of Todd, who stated that they were the joint occupiers of the house. The officers were admitted to the house, and at once detected a smell which suggested the smoking of cannabis, and saw that one of the Todds was smoking a cigarette. Believing that the cigarette was the origin of the smell, the two officers cautioned and charged one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continued Appeal Under Section 74 By As Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...of the evidence requires a challenge to the validity of the warrant, which can only be done by means of a Bill of Suspension (Allan v Tant 1986 JC 62). [3] The background circumstances of the present case are set out in the opinion of the court referred to above, and need not be repeated. T......
-
Bill Of Suspension By Michael Stewart Against The Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow
...v Crowe 1992 SCCR 181, Herd v HM Advocate 1999 SCCR 315 and Sir Gerald Gordon’s associated commentaries, the decision in Allan v Tant 1986 JC 62 makes it clear that where the contention is that an ex facie valid warrant should not have been granted, it is not open, at least to a sheriff, to......
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. Dean Foulis And Grant Young
...not being ex facie valid, the sheriff erred in sustaining the objection stated to it. He had no power to review its grant (Allan v. Tant 1986 SCCR 175). [7]In reply, Miss Scott contended that a full and precise date is an essential requirement of a warrant granted at common law. In any even......
-
Pham Meo V. Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock
...warrant, granted under section 23(3) of the 1971 Act, in advance of the trial diet. This was said to be necessary following Allan v Tant 1986 SCCR 175 and Stuart v Crowe 1992 SCCR 1981. The ground for suspension is that the sheriff had not been appraised of the actions of the police in ente......