New guidance has just been issued about the issue of search warrants, and official documentation has been revised following some important decisions in the higher courts.
The underlying theme is to remind us all just what a major intrusion a search warrant can be, when the authorities are allowed to batter down the drawbridge of the castle that is, or should be, the Englishman's home. Having police officers turn over your home, down to the children's toys and your personal effects, must be traumatic, and can only be justified for good and serious reasons.
Hitherto the justice has heard the officer on oath, and asked whatever questions he thinks fit about the Information that the officer must produce. A legal adviser should always be present if possible or, if not, available on the out of hours duty phone. In practice the questioning was usually pretty mild, asking whether vulnerable people or adults were likely to be in the premises and so on.
Now all that has changed, and the officer, in pursuance of his duty to provide full disclosure of the known facts to the justice, must prepare a standard document to take when he makes his application.
Many colleagues are familiar with dealing with applications at home, often at oh-my-god o'clock dressed in slippers and dressing gown. There is a rota of experienced JPs who are available at home; I have never been on it as I live some way from the court and in a different police force area, but a few colleagues live a couple of hundred yards from the Borough police HQ and are well used to a nocturnal call, that should be preceded by a phone call from the duty legal adviser.
It was high time that these reforms were brought in, as we must never forget our duty to act as a buffer between the citizen and the authorities and to see that any interference with liberty is fully justified and proportionate.
Absolutely right Bystander. Remember the position a few years agvo when even if a bench turned down an application, the police/CID would keep going (assisted by certain legal advisers) until they found a softer touch amongst the many JPs in a very large courthouse.
ReplyDeleteNotso goldenoldie
I wonder if there are any statistics that show what percentage of warrants are allowed, and what percentage are declined. I'd imagine that the majority are allowed, but if it's damn close to 100%, then that might indicate that they're too easy to get.
ReplyDeleteOr, conversley, that applications are mostly well justified?
DeleteWhat concerns me is all the searches that take place without a warrant following an arrest. It isn't difficult to come up with some excuse to arrest someone and bypass all the protections against arbitrary searches.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more common reasons for refusing a warrant application is that it has not been signed by an officer of the rank of Inspector or above (and sometimes not at all!). It is also surprisingly frequent to see officers turn up without their warrant card, though we will usually allow them to go and fetch it and return later.
ReplyDeleteBystander does well to remind us of the real significance of granting such applications, and I am entirely in agreement with him on this, as on so much else.
MH
The vast majority of searches are done without a warrent. It is a common tactic to arrest to allow searches under section 18 and 32 of PACE. If this is the only reason for arrest this is unlawful ( Lord Hanningfield v. Chief Constable of Essex Police [2013] EWHC 243 (QB)).
ReplyDeleteI was wondering only the other day if this tactic will be used less in future. I suspect not as most people dont have Hanningfields resources for a legal fight. More importantly, other grounds for arrest can often be found and search will be a 'happy bonus'.
Bill
Has anyone as of yet noticed that the new warrants now have to bear the Magistrates full name as well as their signature. I know some will be un-happy about this development.
ReplyDeleteI signed one three days after the new system came in, and pointed out to the legal adviser that whilst I was required to print my name, and not just sign it, the senior officer only had to sign the document and there was no space set out for them to print their name.
DeleteThere was also a new oath and it all came as surprise, to the three on my bench at least. It should not have done. All magistrates should have had a guide to the new system well before it started.
Just after 13.00 that day a plain clothes officer came into our court asking us to look at a very urgent warrant. We agreed to consider it, until it became apparent he had not used the new documentation. He was sent on his way.
Well I have noticed it and bought it to the attention of many of my colleagues who are less than impressed. I also understand that although it has always been the case that the person, on whom the warrant was served, could apply to see it, they will now be formally advised that this is the case. I wonder how many more applications that will lead to?
DeleteJust to summarise, the ( paid ) officer who applies is not fully identified, the ( paid ) inspector who authorises it is not fully identified and neither is the ( paid ) legal adviser. But Joe J.P. ( volunteer ) is expected to give his full name, which in my neck of the woods and with an uncommom name is ok?
Where is the MA? They bleated about us having to only receive mail without the J.P. suffix, but so far not a word about this!
Re Anonymous16 October 2013 14:37 [the revised procedures being a surprise to “the three on my bench” and “We agreed to consider it ……” ] courts are also being reminded of the long-standing statutory requirement that these warrants are to be considered by a single justice.
DeleteSo are JPs afraid to take responsibility for allowing these applications ?
DeleteExtract from Wikipedia
ReplyDeleteOn 13 March 1996, unemployed former shopkeeper[2] Thomas Hamilton (born Thomas Watt, Jr. 10 May 1952) walked into Dunblane Primary School armed with two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers, all legally held.[2][3] He was carrying 743 cartridges, and fired his weapons 109 times.[4][5] The subsequent police investigation revealed that Hamilton had loaded the magazines for his Browning with an alternating combination of full-metal-jacket and hollow-point ammunition.
The magistrate (or is it Sheriff ?), who signed-off Hamiltons gun licence stated at the inquest that he was "obliged to" do so. Familiar to anyone ?
What is the point of supplying the footnote numbers if you are not going to supply the actual footnotes?
DeleteAnd your point is?
ReplyDeleteAs the police get yup to more and more dubious activity- telling out right lies for one. It becomes harder to believe what you are told without some form of corroboration. These coppers who have lied need to be rooting out of the force as they totally undermine the system. There is just no excuse for 'fitting' someone up.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that you believe that 'Life on Mars' is still a true reflection of modern day policing as well.
DeleteGet real Tiptop - on the whole policing today is as good as those that elect the commissioners and politicians deserve.