Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

In paragraph 4 of the statement of facts it is averred:

Statement of Facts 4 for the complainer was denied. The respondent has stated two pleas in law in the following terms:

In the application for the warrant, which is appended to the Bill of Suspension, it is narrated that:

The solicitor advocate for the complainer went on to emphasise that Amanda Jane Alexander had been arrested on 4 June 2003 before the warrant had been sought and granted. On her detention, she had given the police, as her address, an address in Peterhead, not Fraserburgh. He understood that part of the information which the police had had related to that individual, who had been found in possession of controlled drugs. She had come and gone from the block of apartments numbers 1 to 11 Sycamore Row, which was served by a common entrance and exit. The solicitor advocate for the complainer submitted that, to obtain suspension of the warrant, he had to show that it had been granted on the basis of "wrong information". In connection with the submission that that had occurred, he drew attention to the terms of Answer 3 of the respondents Answers in which reference was made to the fact that

It was contended that there had been no direct evidence linking Amanda Jane Alexander with the premises at 10 Sycamore Row. Furthermore, there was bad faith on the part of the police, since, when they sought the warrant, they knew that she had given an address in Peterhead as her residence. The complaint amounted to the fact that the police had given deliberately incomplete information to the Justice of the Peace. If the full information had been given to the Justice of the Peace, it was questionable whether she would have granted the warrant sought. In all the circumstances the warrant ought to be suspended.

It had to be emphasised that what was required was "reasonable ground for suspecting"; that did not mean a reasonable belief, nor did it mean that corroborated evidence was required in the context. The position had been that the police had confidential information that two females residing at or in the vicinity of 10 Sycamore Row were using that house and dealing in drugs in the lanes nearby. The police had seen Amanda Jane Alexander leaving the door of the apartments numbers 1 to 11 Sycamore Row. She had been searched and controlled drugs found in her possession. On her detention she had given the police an address in Peterhead. It was submitted that that circumstance changed nothing at all. In particular it was submitted that the information she gave to the police regarding having an address in Peterhead did not have the effect of undermining the confidential information that she had been seen emerging from the building in question. While it was averred in the application for the warrant that she was an occupant of 10 Sycamore Road, a person might be an occupant of premises, yet live elsewhere. The position, as it appeared from the report of the justice, was that she could not recall exactly what she was told by the police. However, it was to be presumed that she had acted in good faith and that the police had done likewise, unless the contrary could be shown. In this connection reference was made to Knaup v. Hutchison 2002 S.C.C.R. 879. As appeared from the Opinion of Lord Kirkwood in paragraphs [4] and [10] to [12], the question was whether the justice or sheriff was entitled to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting what was required by the Act in the light of the information put before them. The Advocate depute submitted that material entitling the justice to conclude that there was reasonable ground for suspecting had been put before the justice. That information included the circumstance that two females, including Amanda Jane Alexander were dealing in diamorphine and resided at or near 10 Sycamore Row, Fraserburgh. They had been leaving the house and dealing in drugs in lanes nearby. The fact that Amanda Jane Alexander had given an address in Peterhead in no way undermined the inferences to be drawn reasonably from the material put before the justice. While it was contended that the police had acted, in some way, in bad faith, there was no justification for that assertion. There was no material available to show any departure from good faith. In all the circumstances the Bill should be refused.

While the justice in the present case is unable to furnish the court with details of the information put before her, the respondent has been able to aver that that information was to the effect that

Plainly that information would have been supplemented by the circumstance that Amanda Jane Alexander had been detained, having emerged from the entrance to the block of flats, of which 10 Sycamore Row was one, and found to have been in possession of controlled drugs. We have no hesitation in concluding that that information amply entitled the justice to grant the warrant which she did. In essence, the basis advanced in support of the Bill was that the police had failed to inform the justice that Amanda Jane Alexander, when detained, had given an address in Peterhead as her residence. In our opinion, that fact does not, in any way undermine the significance of the information which was put before the justice. Furthermore, it does not demonstrate to us that there was any bad faith on the part of the police. What was plainly indicated to the justice was that the premises at 10 Sycamore Row, Fraserburgh were "occupied by Amanda Jane Alexander". In our view that averment is not in any way inconsistent with residence elsewhere. In all these circumstances we consider that the complainer has not rebutted the presumption that the warrant was lawfully granted. Accordingly, we have refused to pass the Bill.