Fisher & Anoe v The Cumbria Constabulary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a search conducted by police officers at the premises of the Plaintiffs, who are two brothers running a fish and chip shop at 18, Queens Street, Aspartia. The search was carried out pursuant to a warrant obtained by a police officer, DC Little, based on information received from a magistrate and observations made by the police. The search revealed no drugs at the Plaintiffs’ premises but uncovered substantial drug evidence at nearby premises linked to a suspect, Pullinger, who was subsequently prosecuted.

The Plaintiffs brought an action against the Defendant, the Chief Constable of the Cumbria Constabulary, claiming damages for trespass and malicious process related to the search. The claim included allegations that the search warrant was not properly obtained, that no copy of the warrant was left at the premises as required, and that the police delayed in providing a copy of the warrant to the Plaintiffs’ father after the search.

The Carlisle County Court, with a jury, found in favour of the Plaintiffs on certain issues, awarding damages of £750 for failure to leave a copy of the warrant at the premises and £15,000 for failure to act with due expedition in providing the warrant copy to the Plaintiffs’ father. The Defendant appealed against the damages award, and the Plaintiffs cross-appealed against the finding that DC Little had reasonable and probable cause to obtain the warrant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether DC Little had reasonable and probable cause to procure the search warrant for the Plaintiffs’ premises.
2. Whether the failure to leave a copy of the search warrant at the premises rendered the search unlawful and justified damages for trespass.
3. Whether the police acted with due expedition in providing a copy of the search warrant to the Plaintiffs’ father after the search.
4. The appropriate measure of damages for the trespass and procedural failures by the police.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• DC Little lacked reasonable and probable cause to obtain the search warrant because the information from the informant was not adequately corroborated by observations.
• The search warrant was improperly obtained, with allegations that the magistrate signed a blank warrant which was later filled in by police officers.
• The police failed to leave a copy of the search warrant at the premises, violating Section 16(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• The police delayed unreasonably in providing a copy of the warrant to the Plaintiffs’ father, exacerbating the injury caused.
• Damages should include compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages for trespass and malicious process.

Defendant's Arguments

• DC Little had reasonable and probable cause to obtain the warrant based on reliable information from a magistrate and supporting observations.
• The warrant was properly obtained and signed; allegations of a blank warrant being signed were denied by all relevant witnesses.
• The failure to leave a copy of the warrant at the premises was due to mere forgetfulness and did not render the search unlawful ab initio.
• The police acted with due expedition in providing a copy of the warrant to the Plaintiffs’ father, and the delay was attributable to legitimate operational reasons.
• The damages awarded by the jury were excessive and should be reduced.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the jury’s answers to nine questions that framed the factual issues. The jury accepted that DC Little received reliable information from a magistrate and honestly believed drugs were present at the Plaintiffs’ premises, thus establishing reasonable and probable cause for the warrant despite limited corroborative observations. The judge, as the finder of law, properly relied on the jury’s factual findings to conclude that DC Little had reasonable and probable cause.

The Court acknowledged the procedural failure to leave a copy of the warrant at the premises as required by Section 16(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but found this failure was due to mere forgetfulness. The Court expressed doubt that such a procedural irregularity renders a lawfully obtained warrant unlawful ab initio, especially where the failure occurs at the end of the search, reserving full consideration of this issue for future cases.

Regarding damages, the Court noted that trespass was established due to the failure to leave the warrant copy. The trespass was brief, conducted with reasonable care, and accompanied by mitigating factors such as the offer to pay for door repairs. The delay in providing the warrant copy to the Plaintiffs’ father was an aggravating circumstance but did not justify the high damages awarded. The Court applied principles of compensation for trespass and relevant guidance from precedent cases to reduce the total damages award from £15,750 to £1,250 as fair and reasonable compensation.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the appeal by the Defendant was allowed and the Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed.

Holding: The Court affirmed that DC Little had reasonable and probable cause to obtain the search warrant. The failure to leave a copy of the warrant at the premises was due to mere forgetfulness and constituted a trespass for which damages were appropriate, but the damages awarded by the jury were excessive and were reduced to £1,250.

Implications: The decision clarifies that reasonable and probable cause for a search warrant may be established on reliable informant information even with limited corroboration, and that procedural failures in executing a search warrant do not necessarily render the search unlawful ab initio. The Court also signals a willingness to intervene in jury awards of damages where they are clearly excessive, providing guidance on appropriate compensation for trespass arising from police searches. No new precedent was established as the Court reserved full consideration of the legality of searches where procedural errors occur at the end of the search for future cases.