This item was published during the term of a previous administration that ended in April 2007
Listen
Clarification of law on search warrants
05/07/2002
The High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an appeal court, today accepted a Crown argument and has ruled that in future the presence of a civilian employed by the police on a search would not nullify a police search warrant - as long as the search was under the control of a police officer.
The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, welcomed the court's decision.
He said: "The clarification of the law was an important issue. It is something the Crown took seriously and pursued. The outcome will benefit future cases".
In November, 2001, in an alleged child pornography trial at Linlithgow Sheriff (Her Majesty's Advocate v Andrew Aspinall) the Sheriff upheld a defence objection on the admissibility of a search made by the police. The accused was released.
In January, 2002 the Lord Advocate referred the points of law in the trial which gave rise to the decision by Sheriff Peter Gillam, to the High Court of Justiciary for clarification. The purpose of the reference was to clarify legal points which have arisen in the course of the trial and do not affect the verdict.
Andrew James Aspinall was charged with contravention of Section 52 and 52a of the Civic Government (Scotland ) Act 1982, namely he had in his possession indecent photographs of children.
The Lord Advocate instructed that a reference should be drafted. The formal documentation is known as a Lord Advocate's Reference and is made under section 123 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
The reference is heard by three or more High Court Judges at the High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an appeal court.