RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE
| Date | 01 May 1970 |
| Published date | 01 May 1970 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1970.tb01271.x |
| Author | L. H. Leigh |
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW
OF
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1”
1967,
my colleague,
Mr.
D.
A. Thomas, concluded that
cc.
.
.
the
law consists of a mass of statutory provisions, to which judicial
decisions add confusion rather than clarity.” Since that time,
confusion has been compounded. The decisions
of
the
Court
of
Appeal
in
Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd.
v.
Jones
and
Ghani
and Others
v.
Jonesa
have rendered the law relating to police
powers even more obscure than
it
was formerly and
it
is
now
almost impossible to write
on
the topic with any certainty. The
Chic Fashions
case sanctioned, in relation to search warrants for
stolen goods, the rule that a constable may seize under warrant
goods not specified in the warrant where he reasonably believes
them 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. This power has since been provided
for by statute in relation to the law of theft and the correctness
of the decision is not a matter of concern in connection with theft
and handling.J
Ghani
v.
Jones,
however, not only lays down
a
sweeping new rule concerning the seizure of property from the
person, but also, founding in part
on
Chic Fashions
and in part
on
Elias
v.
Pa~more,~
suggests that a constable can seke from premises
which he has entered lawfully, property of evidential value in con-
nection with the crime which he is investigating.
This
power
enables him to seize material of evidential value against the person
whom he is investigating
or
anyone associated with
him
in the
offence. Both aspects of
Ghani
v.
Jones
are of the first importance.
It
has never been thought to be the law that property can be
seized otherwise than
on
arrest
or
pursuant to a warrant. The
former aspect of
Ghani
v.
Jones
is
unprecedented; the latter aspect
is apt, if followed, to sweep away the limitations contained in
statutes authorising search warrants. Statutory powers to issue
search warrants differ markedly in the conduct which they
authorise. The Theft Act
1968
enables a constable to seize the
articles specified in the warrant
or
any other articles which he
reasonably believes to be stolen. Similarly, the Firearms Act
1968
authorises the constable to whom
it
is issued
to
seize and detain
any firearm
or
ammunition which he may find
on,
inter alia,
the
1
Thomae,
‘‘
The
Law
of
search
and
seizure: further ground for rstionalisation
”
[1967] Crim.L.R.
5.
2
jl968]
2
Q.B.
299.
8
[1968]
3
All
E.R.
1700 (C.A.)
4
Theft Act
1968,
B.
26
(1)
268
S
[1934]
3
K.B.
164.
To continue reading
Request your trial