Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate and the Lord Advocate, Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd, R v.

The House of Lords assessed whether section 9(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 disapplies section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 so as to prevent endorsement in England of search warrants issued in Scotland where the material sought includes "excluded material" or "special procedure material." The court held that section 9(2) should be read with care and does not, by its language or structure, preclude the ministerial endorsement procedure under section 4 of the 1881 Act for warrants issued in Scotland. The decision turned on the proper construction of the word "issue" in section 9(2) of PACE, the limited, ministerial nature of endorsement under the 1881 Act, and the practical and statutory context (including the inapplicability of Schedule 1 of PACE to Scottish prosecutions). The appeal was allowed and the Divisional Court's quashing of the endorsement was reversed.

This appeal arose from a petition by the procurator fiscal in Scotland for a warrant to search premises in Manchester occupied by Granada Television, to obtain material relevant to an alleged common law crime in Scotland. The Sheriff in Glasgow issued the warrant; a Manchester stipendiary magistrate endorsed it under section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 for execution in England. Granada Television challenged the validity of that endorsement on judicial review, arguing that section 9(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 disapplied the 1881 procedure where the material sought was or might be "excluded material" or "special procedure material."

The matter reached the Divisional Court which quashed the endorsement and certified the legal question. The House of Lords heard the appeal.

• Nature of the claim/application: an application for judicial review to quash the endorsement of a Scottish search warrant for execution in England; the issue certified was whether PACE section 9(2) disapplies the cross‑border endorsement procedure in relation to excluded and special procedure material.
• Issues framed by the court: (a) whether the phrase "authorised by the issue of a warrant to a constable" in section 9(2) of PACE should be read as covering the endorsement step under section 4 of the 1881 Act so as to prevent endorsement; (b) whether the PACE Schedule 1 procedure was available to a Scottish prosecutor and therefore intended by Parliament to be the exclusive route; and (c) the practical consequences and statutory context across the United Kingdom jurisdictions.
• Court's reasoning: the Lords analysed the language of section 9(2) (focusing on the noun "issue"), the ministerial nature of endorsement under the 1881 Act, and the structure and territorial scope of PACE and Schedule 1. The court concluded Schedule 1 of PACE was not realistically available to Scottish prosecutors (because applications under it are made by a constable to an English circuit judge and rely on concepts and lists tailored to England and Wales). Given the text, purpose and cross‑jurisdictional consequences, Parliament had not clearly intended to create the anomaly that would flow from disallowing endorsement of Scottish warrants for execution in England where excluded or special procedure material was concerned. Accordingly, section 9(2) does not displace endorsement under section 4 of the 1881 Act, and the endorsement was therefore valid.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords held that section 9(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not preclude the endorsement under section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 of a warrant issued in Scotland for execution in England in relation to material which may include excluded material or special procedure material. The court relied on the textual meaning of "issue", the ministerial character of endorsement, and the statutory and practical context showing Schedule 1 to PACE was not available to Scottish prosecutors.

Appeal from the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, where the endorsement had been quashed: Divisional Court decision reported at [1999] 2 W.L.R. 460 (certified question). The House of Lords allowed the appeal and answered the certified question in the negative.