Williams v Dyfed and Powys Police

Article 8 proportionality in a police home search requires a fair balance between respect for the home and the prevention of crime. The reasons supporting the search must be relevant and sufficient. An unsuccessful search does not itself establish disproportionality. Police need not verify every allegation in anonymous intelligence or establish the informant’s credibility in all respects. They must assess whether the information is sufficiently reliable to justify the warrant and take reasonable available precautions. An inaccurate report may nevertheless provide reasonable cause when supported by surrounding circumstances. Peripheral errors in vehicle-registration information do not necessarily invalidate the application.

Mr and Mrs Williams brought a claim for damages under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 after police officers searched their home under a warrant issued pursuant to section 26(1) of the Theft Act 1968. No property was seized. They alleged that the officer had relied on inaccurate anonymous information and had failed adequately to corroborate it, contrary to Article 8.

The respondent also relied on statutory protection under section 6 of the Protection of Constables Act 1750 and raised a related vicarious-liability issue under section 88(1) of the Police Act 1996. The trial judge dismissed the claim on its merits. The appeal concerned the sufficiency of the officer’s inquiries, the proportionality of the warrant application, alleged malice, and whether Mrs Williams required a separate assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Pitchford gave the substantive judgment, with Lord Justices Elias and Carnwath agreeing.
2. The application for the warrant and the search of the home engaged Article 8. The relevant question was whether the interference struck a fair balance between respect for the home and the prevention of crime, having regard to whether the reasons relied on were relevant and sufficient. The approach was consistent with Keegan v United Kingdom [2006] ECHR 764.
3. The officer was not required to confirm every averment made by the anonymous informant or to prove the informant’s reliability in all respects. His task was to investigate whether the information was sufficiently reliable to justify applying for a warrant. Reasonable and available precautions had to be taken, but further inquiries were not necessarily conditions precedent to a reasonable belief.
4. The anonymous report, the recent advertisements for cars, the vehicles observed at the property, and the Alfa Romeo registered to a person in Gloucestershire gave reasonable cause to believe that at least one stolen car was present. That was sufficient to support the wider belief that Mr Williams was dealing in stolen cars. Errors concerning the registration numbers of the other vehicles did not alter the result. The application was proportionate under Article 8.2.
5. The evidence did not justify substituting a finding of malice for the trial judge’s assessment. The challenge was materially the same in relation to both claimants, and no separate argument established disproportionality in Mrs Williams’s case.
6. Because the appeal failed on the merits, the court declined to decide the effect of section 6 of the Protection of Constables Act 1750 or the consequential arguments concerning section 88(1) of the Police Act 1996. Lord Justice Carnwath noted that the search had proved unfounded in hindsight, but that did not establish a breach of the Convention. Order: appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — in [2010] EWCA Civ 1627, dismissed the appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — on 10 June 2009, His Honour Judge Christopher Vosper QC dismissed the claim for damages under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The judgment body records the judge as sitting at the County Court in Swansea.