WARRANT TO SEARCH.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 May 1916, Page 3

WARRANT TO SEARCH.

SEQUEL TO MOKAU iIQUOR CASE. AN INTERESTING LAW POINT. An interesting point in connection with the licensing laws and the right to search premises was involved in an appeal case heard by Mr. Justice Edwards at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The matter was an appeal against the Magistrate's decision in a case in which Margaret Box, who keeps a boarding-house at Mokau, was charged with obstructing Constable McGregor in the execution of liis duty. The facts were that the constable, who had a search warrant issued by a J.P. at Mokau, under section 22S of the Licensing Act, 190S, went to Mrs, Box's boarding-house to search for liquor, and afterwards reported that he liad been obstructed by Mrs. Box, who was alleged to have broken several bottles of beer which were found by the constable on the premises, and of which lie bad intended to take possession. At the hearing in the Magistrate's Court Mr. J. H. Quilliam, wbo appeared for defendant, submitted that there could be no conviction for obstructing the constable, because the warrant was issued without jurisdiction; in that the Justice who issued it had not satisfied himself by information on oath that there was reasonable ground to believe that liquor was sold, or exposed, or kept for sale in Mrs. Box's premises, the warrant having been issued on an information which simply set out that the constable had reasonable ground for believing in this state of affairs. The Magistrate, in delivering his judgment, held that tlie warrant was' bad having been issued without jurisdiction for the reasons stated above, and he accordingly dismissed the charge. „ The appeal was made at the instance of the police, wlio wore represented by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. H. K. Billing), while Mr. J. H. Quilliam appeared for tne respondent. The case was argued at some length by counsel and numerous authoritic-s were quoted. Mr. Billing submitted that the Magistrate sat as a Justice of the Peace and had no puwer to review the action of another Justice of the Peace. The Statute did not give him any power to review what the Justice had done in issuing the warrant. When the J.P. issued the warrant he had evidence on which he was entitled to act.

?r S ?S or: W,laf: ev 'denee was that? Mr. Billing: The evidence of the police constable. - 1 al ® s Honor: That wa«; no evidence at Mr. Billing submitted the constable had reasonable ground, on which to mL 'I, ' J OU,(I a ' ce Pt the statement on oath of a constable that the constable had reasonable, proof His Honor: You as well say a J P. would have to ar-rept the statement if a constable said lie bad reasonable grounds to believj the moon was made of green cheese. J,, H °nor went on to point out that the statement "readable ground*" was not sufficent; the .IP. did not have before him on oath the grounds on which he was asked to issue a warrant. It was essentia) that the grounds should have been given to him.

After quoting >;overai cases, Mr Billing contended that Sfctmn 228 of the Licensing Act. 1008, only required a •T.P. to be satisfied the*e were reasonable grounds for the issv.e of a warrant, and he was within jurisdiction if he accepted the oath of the constable that there were reasonable ground!!. The point to be proved before a J.P. was that there were reasonable grounds His Honor: Exacfty, and that has not been proved. The war-r.nt simply says the constable believes there arj reasonable grounds, but he does not specify the grounds. :

Mr. Quilliam submittc! that the decision of the Magistrate was right. The warrant was based on the mere statement of the constable that tbrre wore reasonable grounds to believe, ajid the J.P. did not take any steps to ascertain what the grounds were; he simply accepted tile constable's statement. No ease could be pointed to where a warrant was accepted as valid where the grounds for suspicion yore not set out. Mr. Quilliam quoted numerous authorities bearing out his argument

After deliberation, liis Honor said he was of opinion that t'to case was not arguable. A J.P. was obliged to satisfy himself that there were reasonable grounds on which to issue a warrant, and thi3 lie had not don". It was therefore clear that the warrant had been issued without jurisdiction, and the appeal would be dismissed. "In regard to the question of costs I see no reason to depart from a principle I have already stated," added His Honor. "If the police are satisfied that any Court proceedings are warranted they may quite properly lay an information and bring the matter before the lower Court, but if the prosecution fail? and providing the prosecution is not an unreasonable one the practice is not to grant costs' against the police. But where the Magistrate has correctly adjudicated and the informant chooses to appeal my practice has been to allow costs against the appellant if the appeai is dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs, £7 75."