Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | Rob R. Jerrard |
| Published date | 01 January 2000 |
| Date | 01 January 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X0007300308 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
ROB R. JERRARD
Lega/Co"espondent
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Rob_Jerrard/
Policela.htm
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Officers
Cannot
Remove Items for Sifting, Fishing Expeditions
Not
Permitted
when Exercising aSearch
Warrant
RvChesterfield Justices and Others, ex p Bramley
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
(1999) The Times, 10 November
Search warrants, law and practice
The issue was what might in law, and should in practice, be done
during a police search of premises when any question arose as to
whether documents on the premises were subject to legal professional
privilege.
The statute
The statutory framework was provided by the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). On a police constable's application, a
search warrant could be issued by a magistrate under s. 8(1) of that Act,
provided that, among other things, the magistrate was satisfied that
there were reasonable grounds for believing that the material to be
searched for did not consist of or include items subject to legal
privilege.
Except where there was no doubt as to which items were privileged,
nothing useful would be achieved by an express condition in the
warrant excluding privileged items.
The warrant provided police with the authority to enter and search
the premises, and s. 8(2) of the Act empowered them to seize and retain
anything for which a search had been authorised in the warrant.
His Lordship noted that in RvChief Constable
of
the Warwickshire
the criteria which a magistrate had to be satisfied of in s. 8(1) had to be
satisfied in respect of material that was seized.
The court could not accept that the criteria set out in s. 8(1) were
directed to the state of mind ofthe magistrate when he wasbeing asked
to issue the warrant.
The police were not, for example, required by s. 8(1) to be satisfied
that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the material
sought did not consist of or include items subject to privilege.
However, s. 19(6) prevented a police officer from seizing an item
which he had reasonable grounds for believing to be subject to legal
professional privilege.
The Police Journal, Volume 73 (2000) 277
To continue reading
Request your trial