Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 October 1988 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8806100412 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Date | 01 October 1988 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield,
Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
PRACTICALITIES OF SEARCH
Rv. Longman [1988] 1 W.L.R.619 Court of Appeal
The
accused was convicted
of
atempted wounding with intent to resist
lawful arrest and of obstructing aconstable exercising powers under the
Misuse
of
Drugs Act 1971. On appeal he was challenging the use
of
police
powers in the incident in question.
Fivepolice officers had gone to Longman's premises. They were in
possession of a warrant to enter and to search. They had had previous
experience
of
gaining entry to the premises, despite possession of a
warrant, and so had made provision to keep the dooropen by taking along
acrowbar
and
atruncheon. They were in plain clothes
and
used the
policewoman to get the door open by a trick. She said she was from
Interflora and wished to leave flowers for the next door house, where no-
one was in. The door opened and, as Lord Lane C.J. puts it,
'the
officers
immediately made their way in'. It is interesting to note, though strictly
irrelevant, that the policewoman had brought flowers along! One officer
had in his hand both his warrant card and the folded entry and search
warrants. The appellantaccording to the officers shouted'its the filth, boy.
Get
rid
of
it.'
The
Lord
Chief
Justice assumed this was meant to refer to
the police. One
of
the officers went to another room and found a young
man justabout to take cocaine. The shout was plainlymeant to hinder and
obstruct the police.
The
appellant then was said to use a knife but was
disarmed and handcuffed apparently without injury being done. It was
accepted at the trial by the officer that he had had no chance to show the
warrants
to the appellant. He later had endorsed the warrant that a copy
had been served, but could not recall when the endorsement was made or
the copy served.
Thoseproceedings were challenged as contrary to the provisions of
ss.15 and 16 Policeand CriminalEvidenceAct 1984. These sectionswere
carefully considered. Section 15 presented aproblem with the words
'an
entry on or search of premises under a warrant is unlawful unless it
complies with this section and s. 16 below'.
The
word 'it' can be said to
refer either to the warrant or to the section.
The
Court
of
Appeal were
driven to accept the former interpretation by the grammar.
The
singular
(it) ratherthan plural (they) appears toapply to warrantand
nottoentry
and
376 October 1988
To continue reading
Request your trial