- 27-
(a) of the criteria on which the court's approval of an application for a search warrant filed by a government department is based and whether there is any system to keep this power in check; (b) whether the court or the department which files the application will be held responsible in the event that the application is subsequently proved to be at fault or ultra vires;
(c) of the time normally taken for obtaining a search warrant; and
(d) if members of the public have objections to the contents of an application for a search warrant, to which department should they go to in order to raise their objections prior to the grant of the search warrant?
Reply:
Mr President,
(a) In granting applications for search warrants, the court acts in accordance with the provisions in the relevant legislation under which the applications are made. The magistrate responsible will make sufficient enquiry to satisfy himself that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the items in respect of which the warrant is sought are on the premises to be searched. Such enquiry could include questioning the police officer requesting the search warrant under oath or affirmation or requiring the information in support of the warrant to be more precise.
The power to grant warrants is discretionary. Therefore, a magistrate is not required to accede to an application for a search warrant even where the statutory requirements have been met. This, together with the fact that a magistrate must refuse to grant a warrant if he is not satisfied that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the items in respect of which the warrant is sought are on the premises to be searched, serves to keep searches by government departments in check.
(b) Whether the court or the department which filed the application would be held responsible in the event that the application is subsequently proved to be at fault or ultra vires depends upon the circumstances in which the search warrant was issued. In general terms, a court could only be held responsible where it was established that it was acting maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause; and a government department could only be held responsible where it was established that it was acting maliciously.