King v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1968 |
| Year | 1968 |
| Date | 1968 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Jamaica - Constitution - Right of individual not to be subjected to search or entry on his premises - Evidence obtained by unauthorised search - Whether court's discretion to admit evidence taken away by constitutional right -
By the
“(1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be subjected to the search of his person or his property or the entry by others on his premises.
“(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required … for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime ….”
By the Dangerous Drugs Law, s. 21, any constable “named” in a warrant is authorised to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant and any persons found therein.
The Constabulary Force Law, s. 18, authorises the arrest of a person without warrant “found committing any offence” or, s. 22, “known or suspected to be in unlawful possession … of dangerous … drugs,” the person to be searched to be taken before a justice who was thereupon required to cause him to be searched in his presence.
The appellant was searched by a police officer acting under a search warrant obtained under section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The warrant was addressed to “Any lawful constable” and specifically named only one person “Joyce Cohen”. The appellant was not taken before a justice to be searched in his presence. He was charged with being in possession of dangerous drugs contrary to the Dangerous Drugs Law. The Crown's case was that the appellant was searched by a police officer in pursuance of a proper search warrant and that a dangerous drug was found on him. His case was that the drug was planted on him by the police officer who conducted the search. The magistrate accepted the evidence for the Crown and convicted the appellant. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
On appeal:—
Held, (1) that the search of the appellant was not justified by the warrant, for it did not in terms authorise the search of any person and the Dangerous Drugs Law authorised entry and search only by the constable therein “named,” which word was to be construed literally and not as “designated,” “specified” or “identified” (post, p. 394H).
(2) That “found” in section 18 of the Constabulary Force Law did not authorise a search, and since the appellant was not taken before a justice to be searched in his presence, section 22 of that law had not been complied with and there was no legal justification for the search (post, pp. 395H–396A–B).
(3) But that although the search was illegal the court had a discretion to admit the evidence obtained as a result of it and the constitutional protection against search of person or property without consent did not take away the discretion of the court; and that, since it was not a case in which the evidence had been obtained by conduct of which the Crown ought not to take advantage, there was no ground for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the court to admit the evidence obtained by the search (post, p. 401B–C).
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
1968. January 25, 29, 30. Montague Solomon and Brian Sinclair for the appellant.
J. G. Le Quesne Q.C. and Gerald Davis for the respondent.
The following case, in addition to those referred to in the judgment, was cited in argument: R. v. Wallace.F1
1968. April 3. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD HODSON.
The appellant was charged as follows:
“Herman King of 4 Anglesea Avenue of the parish of St. Andrew with force at 20 Ladd Lane and within the jurisdiction of this court unlawfully was found in possession of certain dangerous drugs to wit ganja. Contrary to section 7C of Chapter 90.”
This Act is called “The Dangerous Drugs Law”. The appellant was convicted by the resident magistrate, Kingston, Jamaica, on February 2, 1966, and his appeal to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica was dismissed on July 29, 1966.
The case against the appellant was that on January 11, 1966, at 20 Ladd Lane, Kingston, he was searched by a police officer in pursuance of a search warrant, under the Dangerous Drugs Law and ganja was found on him.
The appellant's case was that ganja was planted on him by the police officer who conducted the search. He said that he was first searched and that nothing was found on him whereupon the only other man present, apart from police officers, was sent out of the room. He said that he was then searched again and ganja was produced which the police falsely claimed had been found on him. There was conflict of evidence between the witnesses called on either side and on the appellant being disbelieved the conviction followed.
The Dangerous Drugs Law, section 7, provides as follows:
“Every person who … (c) has in his possession any prepared opium or ganja … shall be guilty of an offence against this law”.
Section 21 (2) of the law provides as follows:
“If a justice is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting — (a) that any drugs to which this law applies are, in contravention of the provisions of this law or of any regulations made thereunder, in the possession or under the control of any person in any premises; or (b) that any document directly or indirectly relating to or connected with any transaction or dealing which was, or any intended transaction or dealing which would if carried out be, an offence against this law or, in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out in any place outside the island, an offence against the provisions of any corresponding law in force in that place, is in the possession or under the control of any person in any premises, he may grant a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant, at any time or times within one month from the date of the warrant, to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant, and to search the premises and any persons found therein, and if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against this law has been committed in relation to any such drugs which may be found in the premises or in the possession of any such persons, or that any document which may be so found is such a document as aforesaid, to seize and detain those drugs or that document, as the case may be”.
The section thus authorised any constable named in a warrant to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant and to search the premises and any persons found therein.
The police search party went to 20 Ladd Lane on January 11, 1966, armed with a warrant which was in the following terms:
“To any Lawful Constable of the Parish of Kingston Whereas it appears to me, W. Chambers Esquire, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the Parish of Kingston, by the Information and complaint on oath of Henry R. Isaacs, Sgt. of Police, that there is good reason to believe that dangerous drugs to wit: ganja, is kept and concealed on the premises of Joyce Cohen of 20 Ladd Lane in the parish of Kingston These are therefore in Her Majesty's name, to authorise and command you with proper assistance, to enter the said premises of the said Joyce Cohen in the day or night time and there diligently search for the said dangerous drugs and if any articles of dangerous drugs be found after such search, that you will bring the dangerous drugs so found and the body of the said Joyce Cohen before me, or some other of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said Parish of Kingston to be...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R v Sang
...We say this with respectful diffidence, not only in view of the constitution of the Court concerned in Payne, but because in King v. The Queen (1969) 1 A.C. 304, the Judicial Committee at page 317 treated Payne as authority for the broad proposition that a judge has a discretion to exclude ......
- Mohan v The Queen
- Malubel Pty Ltd v Elder
-
Re Operation Tempura
...[1978] Q.B. 490; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 895; [1978] 1 All E.R. 555; (1978), 66 Cr. App. R. 81; 121 Sol. Jo. 662, followed. (12) King v. R., [1969] 1 A.C. 304; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 391; [1968] 2 All E.R. 610; (1968), 52 Cr. App. R. 353; 112 Sol. Jo. 419, followed. (13) Kuruma, son of Kaniu v. R., [1955]......
-
Public policy and private illegality in the pursuit of evidence
...Bunning vCross (1977–1978) 141 CLR 54 at 74–75. See also People (Attorney-General) vO’Brien [1965] IR 142 at 160;King vThe Queen [1969] 1 AC 304 at 315; Ridgeway vThe Queen (1994–1995) 184 CLR 19 at 54 (Brennan J), 73 (GaudronJ), 81 (McHugh J). See, further, Clough vLeahy (1904) 2 CLR 139 a......
-
Subject Index
...151Kentucky v Stincer, 482 US 730 (1987)...................................................... 16King v The Queen [1968] 3 WLR 391 86King v Reason, 16 How St Tr 1 (KB1722)............................................... 247Klass v Federal Republic of Germany(1978) 2 EHRR 214 ......................
-
The Common Law and the Litigation of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Before the Privy Council
...Bahamas. The Belize clause was spent after ive years from the promulgation of that state’s Constitution. 9. Nasralla (n 5) 247–48. 10. [1969] 1 AC 304 (PC Ja) 319. The case was concerned with the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. 11. DPP v Tokai [1996] AC 856 (PC T&T) 862. Trans......
-
The extradition and return of fugitive offenders - applicability of human rights considerations
...For editorial comment in that newspaper, see January 2 1993, p.20. 39 Quoted in Kreczko, supra n. 36, at p. 615. 40 Cf. King v. Reg. [1969] 1 A.C. 304 at 319. But Bennett, discussed in extenso below (see n. 41 and accompany text), may well have changed Jamaican law also. 41 Ker v. Illinois ......