Police officers in plain clothes went to the appellant's premises with a warrant to enter and search the premises for drugs. gain entry, a woman police constable, pretending to be delivering flowers, knocked on the door and when the appellant opened it, the police officers entered. One of the officers, who had the warrant in his possession and gave evidence that he had it folded in his hand with his warrant card, shouted 'Police, got a warrant'. The appellant reacted by shouting a warning to a man, who was later found in a room with drugs, and then the appellant pulled a knife from the back of the door and lunged at the officer with it. He was arrested and charged with attempted wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The recorder ruled that for the entry and search of the appellant's premises and his subsequent detainer to be lawful it was not necessary for the requirements as to identification and production of the warrant imposed by s 16(5) of PACE 1984 to have been complied with before the police entered the premises and, in her summing up to the jury, she defined 'produce' the warrant in s 16(5)(b), as 'available to be seen'. The appellant was convicted. On appeal against conviction: Held, dismissing the appeal: that s 16(5) of PACE 1984 required the constable to identify himself, to produce the search warrant and to provide the occupier with a copy, but it did not require the constable to fulfil those obligations before entering the premises; that where a search warrant was issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the constable had reasonable grounds for believing that delay in entry would frustrate the search, he could, both under s 23(3) of the Act of 1971 and para 5.4 of the Code of Practice, use force or subterfuge to gain entry to the premises before complying with the requirements of s 16(5) of the Act of 1984; and that, accordingly, the police officers' entry into the premises was lawful. That a warrant or warrant card was 'produced' in compliance with s 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 when the occupier was given an opportunity to inspect it; that it was not sufficient that the occupier was merely shown that the officer had a warrant, but the jury could have been in no doubt that before the police officer had time to permit the appellant to inspect the warrant and the warrant card, he had obstructed the police by shouting his warning to the other man in the house and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to inspect the documents before his arrest. : interpret-ian

doi:10.4324/9781843143451-113

Chapter

Police officers in plain clothes went to the appellant's premises with a warrant to enter and search the premises for drugs. gain entry, a woman police constable, pretending to be delivering flowers, knocked on the door and when the appellant opened it, the police officers entered. One of the officers, who had the warrant in his possession and gave evidence that he had it folded in his hand with his warrant card, shouted 'Police, got a warrant'. The appellant reacted by shouting a warning to a man, who was later found in a room with drugs, and then the appellant pulled a knife from the back of the door and lunged at the officer with it. He was arrested and charged with attempted wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The recorder ruled that for the entry and search of the appellant's premises and his subsequent detainer to be lawful it was not necessary for the requirements as to identification and production of the warrant imposed by s 16(5) of PACE 1984 to have been complied with before the police entered the premises and, in her summing up to the jury, she defined 'produce' the warrant in s 16(5)(b), as 'available to be seen'. The appellant was convicted. On appeal against conviction: Held, dismissing the appeal: that s 16(5) of PACE 1984 required the constable to identify himself, to produce the search warrant and to provide the occupier with a copy, but it did not require the constable to fulfil those obligations before entering the premises; that where a search warrant was issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the constable had reasonable grounds for believing that delay in entry would frustrate the search, he could, both under s 23(3) of the Act of 1971 and para 5.4 of the Code of Practice, use force or subterfuge to gain entry to the premises before complying with the requirements of s 16(5) of the Act of 1984; and that, accordingly, the police officers' entry into the premises was lawful. That a warrant or warrant card was 'produced' in compliance with s 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 when the occupier was given an opportunity to inspect it; that it was not sufficient that the occupier was merely shown that the officer had a warrant, but the jury could have been in no doubt that before the police officer had time to permit the appellant to inspect the warrant and the warrant card, he had obstructed the police by shouting his warning to the other man in the house and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to inspect the documents before his arrest.

Chapter

Police officers in plain clothes went to the appellant's premises with a warrant to enter and search the premises for drugs. gain entry, a woman police constable, pretending to be delivering flowers, knocked on the door and when the appellant opened it, the police officers entered. One of the officers, who had the warrant in his possession and gave evidence that he had it folded in his hand with his warrant card, shouted 'Police, got a warrant'. The appellant reacted by shouting a warning to a man, who was later found in a room with drugs, and then the appellant pulled a knife from the back of the door and lunged at the officer with it. He was arrested and charged with attempted wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The recorder ruled that for the entry and search of the appellant's premises and his subsequent detainer to be lawful it was not necessary for the requirements as to identification and production of the warrant imposed by s 16(5) of PACE 1984 to have been complied with before the police entered the premises and, in her summing up to the jury, she defined 'produce' the warrant in s 16(5)(b), as 'available to be seen'. The appellant was convicted. On appeal against conviction: Held, dismissing the appeal: that s 16(5) of PACE 1984 required the constable to identify himself, to produce the search warrant and to provide the occupier with a copy, but it did not require the constable to fulfil those obligations before entering the premises; that where a search warrant was issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the constable had reasonable grounds for believing that delay in entry would frustrate the search, he could, both under s 23(3) of the Act of 1971 and para 5.4 of the Code of Practice, use force or subterfuge to gain entry to the premises before complying with the requirements of s 16(5) of the Act of 1984; and that, accordingly, the police officers' entry into the premises was lawful. That a warrant or warrant card was 'produced' in compliance with s 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 when the occupier was given an opportunity to inspect it; that it was not sufficient that the occupier was merely shown that the officer had a warrant, but the jury could have been in no doubt that before the police officer had time to permit the appellant to inspect the warrant and the warrant card, he had obstructed the police by shouting his warning to the other man in the house and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to inspect the documents before his arrest.

DOI link for Police officers in plain clothes went to the appellant's premises with a warrant to enter and search the premises for drugs. gain entry, a woman police constable, pretending to be delivering flowers, knocked on the door and when the appellant opened it, the police officers entered. One of the officers, who had the warrant in his possession and gave evidence that he had it folded in his hand with his warrant card, shouted 'Police, got a warrant'. The appellant reacted by shouting a warning to a man, who was later found in a room with drugs, and then the appellant pulled a knife from the back of the door and lunged at the officer with it. He was arrested and charged with attempted wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The recorder ruled that for the entry and search of the appellant's premises and his subsequent detainer to be lawful it was not necessary for the requirements as to identification and production of the warrant imposed by s 16(5) of PACE 1984 to have been complied with before the police entered the premises and, in her summing up to the jury, she defined 'produce' the warrant in s 16(5)(b), as 'available to be seen'. The appellant was convicted. On appeal against conviction: Held, dismissing the appeal: that s 16(5) of PACE 1984 required the constable to identify himself, to produce the search warrant and to provide the occupier with a copy, but it did not require the constable to fulfil those obligations before entering the premises; that where a search warrant was issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the constable had reasonable grounds for believing that delay in entry would frustrate the search, he could, both under s 23(3) of the Act of 1971 and para 5.4 of the Code of Practice, use force or subterfuge to gain entry to the premises before complying with the requirements of s 16(5) of the Act of 1984; and that, accordingly, the police officers' entry into the premises was lawful. That a warrant or warrant card was 'produced' in compliance with s 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 when the occupier was given an opportunity to inspect it; that it was not sufficient that the occupier was merely shown that the officer had a warrant, but the jury could have been in no doubt that before the police officer had time to permit the appellant to inspect the warrant and the warrant card, he had obstructed the police by shouting his warning to the other man in the house and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to inspect the documents before his arrest.

Police officers in plain clothes went to the appellant's premises with a warrant to enter and search the premises for drugs. gain entry, a woman police constable, pretending to be delivering flowers, knocked on the door and when the appellant opened it, the police officers entered. One of the officers, who had the warrant in his possession and gave evidence that he had it folded in his hand with his warrant card, shouted 'Police, got a warrant'. The appellant reacted by shouting a warning to a man, who was later found in a room with drugs, and then the appellant pulled a knife from the back of the door and lunged at the officer with it. He was arrested and charged with attempted wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest and with obstructing a constable in the execution of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The recorder ruled that for the entry and search of the appellant's premises and his subsequent detainer to be lawful it was not necessary for the requirements as to identification and production of the warrant imposed by s 16(5) of PACE 1984 to have been complied with before the police entered the premises and, in her summing up to the jury, she defined 'produce' the warrant in s 16(5)(b), as 'available to be seen'. The appellant was convicted. On appeal against conviction: Held, dismissing the appeal: that s 16(5) of PACE 1984 required the constable to identify himself, to produce the search warrant and to provide the occupier with a copy, but it did not require the constable to fulfil those obligations before entering the premises; that where a search warrant was issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the constable had reasonable grounds for believing that delay in entry would frustrate the search, he could, both under s 23(3) of the Act of 1971 and para 5.4 of the Code of Practice, use force or subterfuge to gain entry to the premises before complying with the requirements of s 16(5) of the Act of 1984; and that, accordingly, the police officers' entry into the premises was lawful. That a warrant or warrant card was 'produced' in compliance with s 16(5)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1984 when the occupier was given an opportunity to inspect it; that it was not sufficient that the occupier was merely shown that the officer had a warrant, but the jury could have been in no doubt that before the police officer had time to permit the appellant to inspect the warrant and the warrant card, he had obstructed the police by shouting his warning to the other man in the house and thereby deprived himself of the opportunity to inspect the documents before his arrest.

ABSTRACT

Lord Lane CJ said, obiter (p 623): Section 15 of the Act of 1984 is not altogether easy to understand. The material parts read: '(I) This section and section 16 below have effect in relation to the issue to constables under any enactment, including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act, of warrants to enter and search premises; and'- these are the words it is not easy to interpret-ian entry on or search of premises under a warrant is unlawful unless it complies with this section and section 16 below.' One asks the question, does that mean that the entry on the

premises or the search is unlawful unless the warrant complies with the two sections? Or does it mean that the entry on or search of the premises is unlawful, unless the entry and search comply with the provisions of the Act? It cannot be both, because the word 'it' is used: if it were both, the word 'they' would have to be used. Since it is in section 15, which is headed 'Search warrants-safeguards' and since that section deals with warrants and the way they are to be obtained and treated, one would expect it to be providing that the warrant should comply with the sections. But since the following section, section 16, deals with entry and search, and since section 16 is expressly mentioned in the passage which I have read from section 15, could it mean that the entry and search must comply with the sections? With some hesitation we are inclined to think that it most probably refers to the warrant, but the real probability is that the intention of the framers of the Act of 1984 was to provide that the warrant should comply with the terms of section 15 and the entry and search should comply with section 16. But unhappily that is not what it says. So there we leave that problem unresolved.