James Paterson V. Here Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Paton,Lord Mackay of Drumadoon,Lord Clarke |
| Judgment Date | 24 August 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] HCJAC 85 |
| Published date | 24 August 2010 |
| Date | 24 August 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | XJ434/10 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lady Paton Lord Clarke Lord Mackay of Drumadoon | [2010] HCJAC 85 Appeal No: XJ434/10 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LADY PATON in BILL OF SUSPENSION by JAMES PATERSON Complainer; against PROCURATOR FISCAL, GLASGOW Respondent: _______ |
Complainer: Gilbride; John Pryde & Co (for Fleming & Reid)
Respondent: G Allan, QC; Advocate depute; Crown Agent
24 August 2010
Challenge to the validity of a search warrant[1] On 7 August 2009, a justice of the peace in Glasgow granted a search warrant in terms of section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The application for the warrant was contained in a pro forma single sheet document with typed text and blank boxes requiring completion. At the foot of the document was the warrant itself, in the following terms:
"Having considered the foregoing Application and relative oath or solemn affirmation, grant Warrant as craved" [followed by the signature of the justice, in box 18].
The information inserted in manuscript in the blank boxes in compliance with the guidance on the reverse of the single sheet is noted below in italics:
Boxes 1 to 3 (details of the police officer seeking the warrant): Dean Waddell, Easterhouse Police Office, Strathclyde.
Boxes 4 and 5 (full name of the occupant and the full address or description of the premises to be searched): James Paterson, Flat 0/1 11 Anwoth Street.
Box 6 (the applicant's police force): Strathclyde.
Boxes 7 to 9 (the signature of the applicant; the city, town or place where the applicant was examined; the date when the applicant was examined on oath): Dean Waddell, Glasgow, 7 August 2009.
Boxes 10 and 11 (full name of the justice, and area for which JP commission held): Susan Carol Brown, Glasgow.
Boxes 12 to 17 (signature of the applicant; signature of the justice after the applicant's signature in box 12; city, town or place where the warrant was signed; date when the warrant was signed; full name of the justice in capitals; area for which JP commission held): Dean Waddell; S Brown; Glasgow; 7 August 2009; Susan Carol Brown; Glasgow.
Box 18 (signature of the justice only if satisfied that the information justifies the grant of a warrant): S Brown.
[2] The complainer presented a bill seeking suspension of the search warrant. The bill narrates that, following upon the grant of the warrant, "police officers conducted a search of premises in Glasgow under the purported authority of the search warrant". Nevertheless the validity of the search warrant is challenged in that "properly understood, the premises to be searched were not identified adequately so as to allow any occupier of the premises which were searched to satisfy [himself] that the justice had granted authority to conduct a search of those premises".
[3] Mr Gilbride, on behalf of the complainer, submitted that the only identification of the premises to be searched given in box 5 was "Flat 0/1 11 Anwoth Street". There was no reference to a town or city. The three fundamental elements for a valid search warrant were the date on which the warrant was granted, the justice's signature, and an adequate description of the premises to be searched. The latter had to be specified so that the justice could be satisfied that he or she had jurisdiction, and so that anyone...
To continue reading
Request your trial