Clause 2 - Warrants to enter and search
Criminal Justice Bill
12:00 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 28. The clause extends the existing range of warrants to give an authorised person who accompanies a police officer the same powers as that officer. Amendment No. 2 would insert ''and duties'' after the word ''powers'' and amendment No. 28 would omit the extension of the power to the execution of the warrant. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are probing amendments; they suggest that the person accompanying the officer should have a duty to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. Likewise, such a person would need the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.
The issue of warrants is a difficult area for the courts. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that my experience in that regard makes me slightly concerned about giving very broad powers to an authorised person accompanying an officer. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant to enter and search premises can be executed by any constable and such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable executing it. Little or nothing else is said about the accompanying person.
Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I picked up a copy of PACE and found what I was talking about in section 16. I then looked at ''Archbold'' and a photostat of section 16, and found that that covered something else completely, and that I needed section 10. I hope to goodness that they are both relevant.
Now, picture the scene: Bow Street magistrates court on any Friday—in my rare moments away from my constituency, I sit there as a district judge. An application is made for a warrant. Before the district judge comes an officer who lays before him the information that a warrant is necessary in relation to certain premises because it is believed that there are drugs or documents involving a financial swindle there. Accompanying the information are sufficient details to enable that judge to form a view as to whether the warrant should be issued. It is no good a policeman turning up and saying, ''I apply for a
warrant for these premises,'' because the answer will be, ''Go away. You can't have one,'' unless that policeman has details of the basis on which the warrant is sought.
Every district judge or magistrate carefully examines an application for a warrant and, if satisfied, grants it. Every district judge or magistrate knows that under PACE the police occasionally take with them someone who is authorised. Our probing amendments try to put a dampener on the clause because it gives the accompanying person and the police officer the same powers. I understand that a policeman has large powers in respect of the warrant—for example, the ability to force entry if required and the ability when inside the premises to seize and confiscate items. Constables are in a unique position; they are given authority by the citizen. We should know what we are doing before we allow the clause to give the accompanying person the same powers as the constable in a blanket fashion. There are reasons why that is important.
My first question to the Minister is, who can be an authorised person under proposed new section (2A)? I am informed in various briefings that it is likely to be an IT specialist, for example, who may be dealing with a computer-related offence. Is there an exhaustive list? Are those who are not fully fledged constables but are part of the community police force—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I use the wrong term—to be included and given the same powers?