Syvret search was legal, confirms AG
Wednesday 29th April 2009, 2:58PM BST.
William Bailhache
THE search of Senator Stuart Syvret’s home without a warrant was legal, Attorney General William Bailhache told the States yesterday.
He said that the decision by the States police to search the Senator’s home without a warrant was legal under the Police and Criminal Evidence Law.
That law gave the police the right to search a property without a warrant if they had good reason to suspect that an offence had been committed, was being committed, or had taken place, Mr Bailhache said.
During questions from Deputy Trevor Pitman, he also said that he had been aware in advance that the Senator was suspected of committing offences under the Data Protection Law and of the decision to search his home.
Asked by Deputy Pitman of the legality of such a search, Mr Bailhache said that it was legal under Article 29 of the PPCE Law, which confirmed that authority. Any challenge to this should take place in a court of law, Mr Bailhache said.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Why have a warrant system at all then!!!
There are not many reasons you would need a warrant which does not fall under the categories of ( reason to suspect that an offence had been committed, was being committed, or had taken place.)
This is seriously worrying.
Report abuse
Good, at last. Now perhaps the Pitmans can get on with more worthwhile things, like running the Island maybe?
Report abuse
Looking forward to reading SS’s blog. No doubt he’ll be moaning about corruption… (Yawn…)
Report abuse
Surprise surprise!
Report abuse
There is a massive difference between the police technically complying with and “Using” a law, then there is doing what is actually right.the precedence being set here is a dangerous one,those who know the difference between “reasonable” cause and “probable” cause will be aware that the latter is a much higher standard of right and protection against police abuse, so you can’t be accused on a whim,the establishment sycophants don’t want to believe the police also are flawed humans just look at the current and recent police actions,court cases and national newspaper reports, it seems to mean that “someone” maybe someone who has an issue with you can decree that they “Suspect” you of whatever and they can turn your place over and all the implications that brings,you wouldn’t be so comfy with it happening to you…?so I hope this is sorted out in court with an “Independent” judging system from out of town,because not only must a judge be impartial..they must also bee seen to be so,it’s all very well saying you can trust ours…well if that’s true show us and you wont mind an independent authority doing it after all the Brits are good at sending observers to African states to make sure the locals aren’t bludgeoned into voting the local gangster in….
Report abuse
I have never heard anything so pathetic as this so-called law in all my life…then again this IS Jersey, and there’s always tomorrow….
Report abuse
And if wasn’t a legal search the corrupt system within this island would make it legal!!!
Report abuse
A cynic might say of the AG’s statement:-
“Well he would say that wouldn’t he”
Report abuse
so an englishman,s home is no longer his castle.they have the right to swoop on your home any-time they wan,t i don,t believe it.we are no longer living in a free world.time people woke up before they come for you.
Report abuse
There have been many postings about the need for warrants under the DP Law but many of you need to look at the law. The person (or properly corporation sole) who needs a warrant is the DP Commissioner. Since the Police acted they quite properly used their powers under PPCE Law
A little knowledge is dangerous especially when from one source.
Report abuse
The JEP seems to be missing the bigger story here.
If the Syvret search was legal, then the Police no longer need a warrant to search any premises. All they need is “good reason” to suspect an offence has taken place.
That is a seismic change in civil liberties, one that would not be tolerated in the outside world, especially by the media.
Report abuse
Ve haf told you ve vill do what we want !!!
Report abuse
Craig 11.spot on….we all need to ask our respective Deputies and Senators to get this law rescinded as a matter of urgency,this one crept in while everyone was asleep,during Kinnards reign. or are all of you o.k. with having your private life scattered around,your files and financial activity monitored and what have you been looking at and doing on the net…displayed to those close to you…is that the clatter of delete buttons I hear..?
Report abuse
So in what circumstances is a warrant required?!
Report abuse
There is nothing odd about a Police force having the power to search a premisies if the have good reason to belive, an arrestable offence is being or has been committed with out a warrant. UK has the same legislation. There are offences that are not ‘arrestable’ these would not includ a power of search.
Report abuse
The Jersey Law is based on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Section 18, PACE search without warrant after arrest
This entitles a constable to enter and search premises, which are occupied or controlled by someone under arrest for an “arrestable offence”, where they reasonably suspect that there is evidence on the premises relating to the offence for which they have been arrested or to some other similar arrestable offence. This power must be authorized in writing by an officer ranked Inspector or higher.
This power is not therefore exercisable where you are under arrest for a non-arrestable offence – eg aggravated trespass. This is why the police sometimes arrest you initially for an “arrestable offence”, in order to trigger the Section 18 power of search. For example, they may arrest you for violent disorder (arrestable offence) even though the evidence may only support a charge of threatening behaviour (non-arrestable offence).
The police may only search those parts of the premises occupied or controlled by the suspect. The police would not be able to search a room within the premises occupied or controlled by someone else, but would be able to search communal areas.
Although the police may only search for evidence relating to the offence, they may seize anything which they reasonably believe is evidence relating to any offence, under the general power of seizure – Section 19 PACE (see below).
7.5 Section 32 PACE search without warrant upon arrest
This section confers the power on a police officer to search an arrested person, who was not arrested at a police station, for anything which might be evidence relating to an offence or which could be used to assist escape from custody.
The officer may also enter and search the premises where the suspect was arrested, or immediately before s/he was arrested, for evidence relating to the offence for which they have been arrested.
The constable may only exercise these powers if s/he reasonably suspects that he will find on those premises items relating to the offence for which the suspect was arrested.
This power is not limited to “arrestable offences”, unlike Section 18 PACE above. However, you have to be on the premises at the time of the arrest or immediately before. Case law has also established that the police can only exercise this power at or around the time of the arrest. So the police are unlikely to use it very often to search your house.
The question however must be, ‘Was the police action proportionate given the circumstances?’
Report abuse
It was only ever Syvret and his gang of followers who thought the Police had done wrong. The rest of the population have kept there faith and await the results of their findings with interest.
Report abuse
Wwhy did the police not obtain a warrant? Surely that would have been the most prudent avenue, especially bearing in mind the seniority and status of the arrested person.
Report abuse
The AG says (categorically) the search was legal. That fact is not for him to comment upon. The law permits a search where there is good reason to suspect that an offence had been committed, was being committed, or had taken place. Whether there was in fact good reason, is a matter for the Court not the AG.
Report abuse
Well like it or not the facts are it was legal,
Will all the SS followers now apologise?…………………..thought not!
Report abuse
Why did the police not obtain a warrant in any event? Surely that would have been the most prudent avenue, especially bearing in mind the seniority and status of the arrested person.
Report abuse
Gary, you do need to understand the difference between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ before demanding apologies from people.
Because the AG gives his opinion on a certain legal point does not make it a ‘fact’. It is nothing more than his opinion and I dare say SS’s lawyer will have a different opinion. If so, a court will decide who is right.
Report abuse
Stephen Wood 18
Look at the article and what the AG actually said
He said the search was legal and any challenge should be in a court of law.
RTFQ!!!!!
Report abuse
Expat 2
Thank you for your exposition of PACE although I am not really sure how far it takes us. This said Sec 32 would have been perfectly adequate as 18 is usually used post arrival at a police station save in exceptional circumstances and as you say on the authority of an Inspector or above (again save in exceptional circumstances subject to the relevant codes of practice in force at the time. One interesting point to note is that Wendy Kinnard managed to suspend habeas corpus by executive order changing codes of practice, so I would not nail your colours to that particular mast. Evening using sec 32 the test is reasonableness but based on the police officer’s judgement as is the reason for an arrest for an arrestable offence. This makes it extremely difficult to challenge successfully. I suppose the real question is was it politically motivated and I doubt that would ever be established even if it was.
Report abuse
Ade I read it that in opinion of the AG this interpretation of the law is correct, however it can be taken to court and they could overturn this interpretation.
If this were to happen, not that I think it ever would, what would be your reaction?
I myself believe that a search warrent should have been sought, so as to avoid any possible confusion, or misunderstanding of the law and how it can be applied.
This interpretation is moving us closer to 1984 in my view. I just hope we don’t soon get to the point of having fully armed swot teams roaming the streets with orders to arrest on sight.
Report abuse
#10 Ade, I was about to ask who exactly required the warrant as it would have seemed unbelievable for it to simply be ‘the Police’, so thanks for answering that one. However, #16 says it must be authorised by an officer ranked Inspector or higher.
Whether or not civil liberties are at risk, does (for me anyway) depend on who exactly is allowed to authorise a search without warrant.
Does anyone have a definitive answer?
Report abuse
Leah Holmes,This site may be of use to you
http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2fconsolidated%2f23%2f23.750_PoliceProceduresandCriminalEvidenceLaw2003_RevisedEdition_1January2009.htm
Report abuse
Let’s quote the Law – it’s not complex:
29(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (5) [irrelevant in this context], a police officer shall also have power in that case –
(a) [irrelevant]
(b) to enter and search any premises in which the person was when arrested or immediately before the person was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he or she has been arrested.
So, there is no doubt the police had the power to search the premises. They didn’t even need to have reasonable suspicion.
And if you think about it, isn’t it common sense that this should be the case? Otherwise, if the police arrested anyone in or coming out of a building, whoever was left in the building would be able to destroy any evidence.
Report abuse
AdvocateSchmadvocate.
‘…a police officer shall also have power in that case – ‘
In what ‘case’ is the law referring to? Article 29(1)?
Where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or herself or others.
Doesn’t Art 29(2) have to read in conjunction with 29(1) for it to make sense?
If so, it seems that there are two criteria to be satisfied first:-
1. That the person has been arrested at a place other than a police station and;
2. if the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or herself or others
Report abuse
We knew this was going to be the result all the time. Well done to the AG and the Police, they do a good job and after reading Senator Syvret’s vile blog again today, he deserves everything he gets.
Report abuse
Well, Village Person, the use of “that” is always a tricky one: does it apply to simply (1) or (1) and (2).
And in any event, given that Syvret had said that no copper would ever take him alive, had he not himself given reasonable grounds for believeing (2)?
Report abuse
Open question to all contributers : are you really comfortable with the cops being able to turn you over on a whim from someone who could be ill, unstable, biased or plain hateful toward you……? for it is all very well getting bogged down in the minutiae of this particular law when in fact , the other question is ,should such a loosely interpreted piece of legislature be merely a tool for the powers that be to do with you as they like…..please don’t tell me you think this is o.k.
Report abuse
“Rico Salta” Of course you knew what the result was going to be, who didn’t!? Jersey Old School sticking together again! What I find hilarious is it took 10 Officers to arrest him! One was there just to identify the property! Monty Python couldn’t write this…!
Report abuse
I therefore see that it is more complex then you had earlier suggested AdvocateSchmadvocate.
On one hand we have a word in the law that may be open to interpretation and on the other we have some words in a blog from the Senator that may or may not have been meant as a serious suicide threat, depending again on how one wishes to interpret them.
I know how Harry Hill would settle this…..
Report abuse
My understanding of the English PACE Act is that the search of premises without a warrant are only deemed lawful if, in all the circumstances, it is considered likely that, were a warrant to be obtained, any evidence that the Police might be likely to obtain as a result of said search would be destroyed by the occupant/proprietor of the premises.
… at least that’s my understanding.
Whilst I appreciate that the Jersey Law may differ, I would be VERY surprised to learn that the mentality behind this provision was different, and so it would appear most likely that the backing for such a decision comes from the earnest (whether you believe it or not is a subjective matter) belief by the authorities that, had they obtained a warrant prior to the search, the Senator would have destroyed whatever evidence they hoped to recover.
Obviously this places a heavier burden of proof upon them to demonstrate that the search WAS fruitful, and that the nature of the evidence they seized (assuming there WAS some) backs up this belief.
Report abuse
Good point Puzzled however that would introduce an after the fact justification and wopuld mean that any act would be lawful as long as you found something (and the reverse)
Report abuse
rico salta (30)why do you bother to read ss blog when you find it so vile?at least he tells us what is going on,not like some of the media that keeps us in the dark.no-one has to look at sites they don,t like unless they are hoping to smear some-ones name.
Report abuse
I just think it’s frightening that the police can on a whim search anyones home and presumably take away anything they feel like at any time, without having to at least obtain some guidance from higher authorities. This now seems to take the police to a level of not being upholders of the law but to actually being the law. This at a time when the most senior policeman in the island is in fact under suspension, one has to wonder whether the police are the right people to make these decisons.
Report abuse
truthseeker 32. it does appear that the majority on here are happy to have their houses searched without a search warrent, as they have complete faith in the authorities to get it right.
On another point I have heard today that British troops are finally being withdrawn from Iraq. I wonder when/if they will have an inquiry into the reasons why they went the country in the first place?
Report abuse
it was to find the “weapons of mass distruction” adrian in the meanwhile thousands of iraqis were killed we will never know just how many.those who instigated this should be done for genicide.
now the world is a much less safe place to be and it gives the authorities the right to put these unnessary controls in place under the guise of “terrorism” which they started in the first place and trying to tell us how successful it was for iraq.there were big demonstrations all over uk against this illegal war but they did,nt listen and wen,t ahead with dire consequences.
Report abuse
Thanks PJG. I have read some parts of Jersey law, generall the Jersey versions of laws I already know to exist in the UK (the differences can be interesting). Problem over here is that the laws are often named quite differently so search functions get me nowhere and there are too many laws to bother with the alphabetical listing.
I’ll have a look at this once my next assignment is out the way. Cheers
Report abuse
A quick response to a couple of points placed here.
Firstly,truthseeker, I for one am more than happy for the police to search my premises on a whim as I am confident that in them doing so I will be proved innocent. I abide by the laws that are in place and don’t feel that I live in an Orwellian state. Perhaps somebody who has been named in confidential documents but has not been charged with a crime such as child abuse would not want their name released on a propaganda website. Surely this person deserved the right to anonymity in case he was not guilty.
Secondly,Despo, 10 police officers? I have enjoyed reading the stories and comments that have been placed on this subject and I have to be honest, this is the first that I have seen with an increase in the number of officers involved. Have you actually followed any of this soap opera? I do hope this is the way the exaggerations are going to start going. It will make things so much more fun.
And, Bella, you may feel that Senator Syvret lets you know what is going on when you read his site but the remarks and statements are one sided, solely his own opinion, and often misguided. The true facts are not generally available from any one news source or whistle blower. I read his blog. I don’t find it “vile” but I do see the major flaws in his arguements. Maybe it is due to the years of fighting against those that control the States with no luck but SS is a jaded man with no direction and hell-bent solely on causing problems in my opinion.
Report abuse
Well Michael – Stuart Syvret is actually the REAL Jersey newspaper! Do you not think, as many do, that the paper you are commenting on now are one-sided (i.e. pro Establishment) and very economical with the truth. Not all comments that people place are allowed to be published. At least on Stuart Syvret’s site, like it or loathe it, what you see is what you get.
Why is it a problem to want to let the electorate know the truth. To date no one has challenged him in the Courts. Surely this begs the question – why?
Report abuse
#michael maybe he has got flaws just like the rest of us.they are on a crusade to get rid of him since the HDLG episode he exposed.i know who i would trust
Report abuse
Bella 40
I wonder how many more Kurds would have been subject to mass chemical genocide had not the brave decision been taken to end the cruel rule of Sadam ?
Report abuse
JG 43
if by “one-sided (i.e. pro Establishment) and very economical with the truth” you mean, as informative as possible but within legal and moral boundaries I agree with you. But I would prefer to call that responsible.
(they did allow your post, so they cant be censoring that much.)
Report abuse
Of course I am aware that this is a one sided newspaper. You don’t honestly think I would be so ridiculous to think otherwise, surely!
The difference is, I can comment on here – as can you and anybody else. There may be filtering on the comments as with any coment site. But you can still post your anti-establishment comments here even though everyone knows the JEP are pro establishment.
I, however have posted comments on Stuart’s blog, I have posted questions and pointed out the points where he is wrong. Because that site is entirely biased toward his point of view and censored by himself, what a surprise to find that I am yet to see a comment of mine published on the site.
Bella, although the HDLG exposure needed to be done and I for one am glad that this has come out, am glad that it is not yet finished and hope that any guilty party is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, you are claiming that the “Oligarchy” is on a crusade to get rid of Stuart because of this.
I find this comment strange as the only person that is making any kind of remarks regarding Stuart at the moment is Stuart himself. When Frank was in charge Stuart had a target who would fight back and they could have their war of words. Now, though, nobody is payong him the attention he craves and he is lost so he wants to take on the whole island. I for one don’t like the way he is conducting himself.
And back to J G; you’re right. Nobody has challenged Stuart in the courts, yet. The police may take Stuart to court over this alleged data breach. Perhaps his disciples will organise a protest in the Royal Square. If he is convicted, perhaps we should all accept that he can blatantly break laws that he himself has been involved when they were passed simply because of who he is.
I trust the police. If I ever needed them I am sure I could count on them to do their job. And if anyone else needed them to do something to protect them I am sure you would all shout for their help. We do not live in a police state as some conspiracy theorists are claiming. I’m sure if I walked past a police officer and claimed how much I hated the Chief Minister they would just carry on walking by me.
Report abuse
#PJG so to kill saddem thousands if not millions citizens were sacrified.that was,nt a brave decision it was murder in the first degree.why did the rest of europe turn this down?because they could see through it.B & B have a lot to answer for and don,t tell me it was to save the people from sadden,if that was the case they would have gone to war on other countries that are much worse than iraq,but they hav,nt got the oilfields that iraqi have.how would you feel if some other country invaded your home town?bombed day and night to get rid of one man
Report abuse
Michael, “I trust the police” are you sure..? Just look at their track record, are you saying that a random bunch of flawed human beings some of whom have proved mentally unstable,have harbored illegal firearm stashes,have been suspended for alleged serious sexual assaults, and whose top brass don’t even trust each other,are a group you trust..? those who are gullible are as lambs to the slaughter…
Report abuse
Bella
Are you saying Saddam was a leader so loved and respected by the Iraqi people that we should have ignored the evil nepotism, cruel oppression and chemical genocide of the Kurds ?
I don’t know if you have ever lived in a corrupt state, I spent time in Uganda during the regime of Idi Amin. The population were crying out for outside help as he decimated his own people.
In the end it was the Iraqi people themselves who hanged Saddam, they must have loved him greatly.
Report abuse
Trust the police! You gotta be kidding right?
Report abuse
bella you are correct about the latest Iraq war. Weapons of mass destruction ready to rain down on London in 45 minutes. This was the reason for war wasn’t? Britain’s own security allegedly was at stake unfortuantely the truth of it was it was all made up wasn’t it?
As per Sadam he was sponsored by the west against Iran in case people forget. He then allegedly turned on the west so we had Gulf War 1 started over Kuwait. In case anyone doesn’t realise Kuwait was an arbitary line in the sand drawn by the British yet again in their colonial days. Other such borders cause problems to this day a perfect example is that between India and Pakistan.
It is estimated at least 1 million have been killed in the last six years and the country is in an even worse mess than before.
Amazingly no one in the west sees anything wrong in Zimbabwe prefering to turn a blind eye to butchery and genocide. Darfur still ongoing etc etc.
PJG what about the Kurds in Turkey and Syria, don’t they count? There are around 10 Million who haven’t even got their own homeland for some reason. The largest minority in the world without their own state. How long before this is sorted out?
Michael in reply to a few of your comments. Some of this should have long ago been resolved. Why hasn’t it been? Some of this goes back 40-50 years from what I have learned. Why no action when these alleged crimes were commited then?
As per a police state, we are in one. If we weren’t we wouldn’t have them would we? Yes I believe we are heading towards 1984 at a rapid rate of knots. What happens when people end up being mocro-chipped because the state says you must be because of the war on terror? Would you be happy with that? I wouldn’t. Personal liberties are not to be taken lightly and need to be defended to the death or we risk becoming a big brother state where your every move is monitored, I for one don’t want this. I expect to be trusted enough by the state not to be under covert survellience.
As per the police remember the Birmingham 6 etc? What about the G20 protests when police officers were hiding their numbers? Why the need to do this if you are doing your job properly? What about the person struck from behind and pushed to the floor who later died? Is this proper policing in the 21st century? I think not.
Report abuse
no i,m not saying saddam was a loved leader,pjg.that was,nt the reason as adrian points out,why not zimbabwe?a much worse regime,than iraq.any-one who believed in weapons of mass destruction (which most of us did,nt)would believe anything wihout doubt.bush is and always was a warmonger who dragged uk into this illegal war those 2 are also hated leaders by the majority.
Report abuse
Well, truthseeker and Green 4, I hope that you have reason to call on the police for their assistance. I hope a group of unruly youths jump you in an alleyway and set upon you. I hope that your house is broken into and your personal belongings stolen. And when that appens I hope you have the nerve to turn to the officers that come to your aid and tell them that you don’t trust them
I am not a hurtful person but if you honestly think that it is easy to be in such a thankless job you are sadly mistaken and perhaps it is time you tested the real world. Jersey is a very safe place to live and this is mainly down to the police work done here. If you want to move to Moss Side in Manchester and live there for a couple of years you may find just how good you have your life here.
Report abuse
Thank you Michael.
I know exactly how thankless and difficult it can be in that job and I speak from the position of having served many years before I moved away to warmer climes.
It is also from that position I can say that I do not trust them. I know how it all works from the inside you see.
Egotistical, blinkered, opinionated and power crazy. Most would be unable to demand their salary in any other job. Most wish they could get out if they could come close to earning the same money. Many are counting down the days to retirement from the moment they pass their probation.
If I do become a victim of crime, on a rare visit back to Jersey, I will be sure to call the police because that is exactly what they are paid for. It does not mean I have to trust them.
It also helps in relation to insurance claims and compensation if you have their magic number.
No point cutting your nose off to spite your face now is there?
Report abuse