Read the full judgment text of CACV 357/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 January 2000 before Chan CJHC, Nazareth V-P, Keith JA.
Search and seizure – validity of search warrants – warrants issued ex parte by a Court of First Instance judge to search the premises of a newspaper and to seize journalistic materials – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) s.17(1A) – Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) Part XII, s.83, s.85(3), s.85(4) – Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (Cap. 204) s.10C(1)(c) – whether Ord. 32 r. 6 RHC empowers the court to set aside ex parte search warrants – whether an application for a search warrant is a lis inter partes or civil proceedings – whether public interest immunity attaches to the affirmation supporting the ex parte application – whether the s.17 warrant is invalid because it purported to authorise seizure and retention of materials when the issuing judge had no power to do so – whether the discrepancy between the description of materials to be seized in the warrants ('likely to be relevant to the investigation') and the power conferred by s.10C(1)(c) of the ICACO ('reason to believe to be or to contain evidence of any of the offences referred to in section 10') renders the warrants invalid – whether a 'trivial excess of power' in a warrant vitiates it – Inspector of Police – journalistic material – free press – public interest in detection of crime balanced against protection of citizens' rights and privacy – strict and restrictive construction of empowering statute – search of newspaper premises for alleged bribery of police officers to obtain classified information – Williams applied – Rossminster applied – appeal dismissed – costs to follow the event – interim restraint on inspection of seized materials pending status quo
Legal issues: Jurisdiction to set aside ex parte search warrants under Ord. 32 r. 6 RHC · Public interest immunity in respect of affirmation supporting search warrant · Validity of s.17 POBO warrant purporting to authorise seizure and retention · Discrepancy between scope of seizure in warrants and statutory power under s.10C(1)(c) ICACO
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; both search warrants (the s.17 POBO warrant and the s.85 IGCO warrant) upheld as valid; refusal by Lugar-Mawson J to set them aside affirmed. Application to the Court of Final Appeal subsequently dismissed (FAMV 2/2000, 28 January 2000).
Cites 1 case