||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 27 (Jun)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Pill, May and Moses LJJ
||Rajeev Shetty (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell LLP) for the defendant.
||The claimant appeared in person.
||4 June 2008
Police - Powers - Right of search - Right of search and seizure - Police officers searching claimant's premises after arrested person giving false name and address - Claimant commencing proceedings alleging that search of his premises unlawful - Judge finding that police not entitled to search claimant's premises - Whether judge erring - s 18.
Where the claimant's premises had been searched by police officers after an arrested person, K, had given a false name and address, the judge had been correct in concluding that applying a literal approach to s18 of the it could not be proved that K had either occupied or controlled the claimant's premises, and that therefore police officers had not been entitled to search the claimant's home. There was no justification for reading s18 of the 1984 Act other than in accordance with its plain words. There was nothing absurd in the construction favoured by the judge. The power conferred by s18 was more limited than the defendant had contended.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports