AB & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police & Anor

A search warrant is valid where the court is satisfied, on the evidence available at the hearing, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the statutory matters. Intelligence alone may suffice, assessed by its volume, consistency and reliability. The information should contain the material necessary to justify the warrant, and any additional oral information should be recorded by both the applicant and the magistrate. Failure to keep such a record does not automatically invalidate the warrant if the court can reliably establish that the statutory test was met. A justices’ clerk may provide technical assistance but must not influence the evidential presentation or diminish judicial scrutiny. Apparent bias depends on whether an objective observer would see a real possibility of bias.

The claimants challenged search warrants issued by the South East Wiltshire Magistrates’ Court on an application by Wiltshire Police under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They alleged that the police application was inadequate and misleading, that the magistrate lacked a sufficient evidential basis and failed to keep a note of the hearing, and that the justices’ clerks’ involvement created apparent bias. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was relied on principally in support of those grounds. The claim was also subject to an objection based on delay.

1. Validity of the warrants. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that controlled drugs or relevant documents were on the premises. The substantial volume, consistency and reliability grading of the intelligence, together with its consideration by experienced officers, was sufficient. Intelligence may by itself establish reasonable grounds for suspicion.
2. The informations, considered alone, were inadequate because a bare reference to intelligence added little to a bare assertion. However, the magistrate received sufficient additional evidence on oath. The officer conveyed the material features of the intelligence, including its period, volume, consistency and assessed reliability. That evidence supplied the necessary basis for the warrants.
3. The absence of disclosure that the claimants had no relevant convictions or arrests, and the absence of objective corroboration such as drug seizures, could not have affected the decision. The warrants therefore were not invalidated by non-disclosure.
4. A record should be kept of all additional information supplied to the magistrate. That is particularly important because the application is heard without the affected person present. Nevertheless, failure to keep a note does not itself invalidate a warrant where the court can assess reliable evidence showing that the statutory test was satisfied. The Article 8 challenge therefore failed.
5. A justices’ clerk may give technical and procedural assistance, but may not advise on the strengths or weaknesses of the evidential case or replace judicial scrutiny. Although the two-hour preparatory meeting was concerning, the evidence did not establish a real possibility of bias.
6. The claim was brought outside the three-month period in CPR Part 54.5(1)(b), but an extension would have been granted because the claimants reasonably sought disclosure and the police showed no significant prejudice. The claim was nevertheless dismissed on its merits.