Regina V Commissioner Of Police For The Metro Case Summary

COMMON LAW REASONING AND

INSTITUTIONS

CASE NOTE

Regina v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Ex Parte Rottman UKHL 20 (2002) 2A.C. 692

s.r.n:130355977

Regina v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Ex Parte Rottman

16 th May 2002.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.

Procedural history:

On appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Decision to the House of Lords. The judicial review against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the Home Secretary was brought by Rottman due to the decision taken the police officer to enter the defendant house to search and seize the items that believed to be material evidence. The Divisional Court said that the entry and search carried by the police officer were unlawful and defendant rights has been violated under the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).However, House of Lords have allowed an appeal holding that the police officer had the common law power of the search based on the execution of a warrant of the arrest.

Material facts:

The respondant Mr Rottman was a German businessman who suspected of an offence of a fraud arrested a few yards from the front door after he was seen in a car with his family entering the driveway of a property in High Wycombe. Later, two police officers obtained the permission of the senior Metropolis Officer to search the house and seize any goods or documents including computers which believed to be material evidence in relation to the extradition crime in respect of which warrant was issued....

... middle of paper ...

...articles which they reasonably believed to be material evidence in relation to the crime for which they had arrested that person.

Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman

Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman agreed with the reasons of Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger gave and allowed the appeal.

Lord Hope of Craighead

According to Lord Hope, the common-law power of search and seizure after the execution of a warrant of arrest issued was not extinguished under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the police officers had been entitled to exercise common law power after the arrest of the defendant.

The common-law power of search and seizure after arrest did not violate the defendant's rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention. The common law power had the legitimate aim of preventing crime and the disappearance of material evidence after the arrest of a suspect.