POWERS OF SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION (Hansard, 14 July 1978)

§ Mr. Townsend
I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may take Lords amendment no. 5.

§ Mr. Townsend
New clause C and new clause D—Lords amendment no. 5—replace clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill as published with a more systematic arrangement for search, seizure and forfeiture which has been modelled on similar provisions in the Obscene Publications Act 1959. New clause C sets out the circumstances in which a justice of the peace may issue a search warrant under the Act, and it lays down the procedure for material to be seized by a constable if he reasonably believes it to infringe the law and for it to be brought before a justice of the peace, save in those circumstances where there is reason, after more detailed scrutiny, for it to be returned.
New clause D provides the procedure under which material seized under warrant by the police can be ordered to be forfeited in cases where there are no grounds for criminal charges against any person. It provides, in addition, that where a conviction is obtained for one of the offences under new clause A, the court is required to order any material seized in connection with the case to be forfeited.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)
I do not want to say much about this new clause from the Lords because it is obviously more or less in accordance with practice in these matters. It is a quite extreme procedure, and one hopes that magistrates will not cause warrants to be issued as a matter of form and that they will require to be satisfied that there is reasonable evidence to suspect that an offence under the Act has been committed.
Hon. Member may remember the case a couple of years ago—not under this legislation but under drugs legislation—in which the premises of a lady were searched in most humiliating circumstances because the magistrates had authorised the issue of a warrant on not much better ground than its being asked for by the police. This can be an outrage upon people's privacy and rights.
I realise that what is said in the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon does not necessarily endure in the practice of magistrates. All kinds of ministerial assurances are given, and they sound convincing on the day they are uttered, but they die very soon afterwards. We pass this kind of thing rather easily because the 1963 purpose and the sentiments behind it are impeccable and we want to root out this kind of offence.
Nevertheless the accumulation of these things becomes a little frightening, and one sometimes fears, not without reason, that magistrates issue search warrants because they are asked to do so by a respectable police officer.

§ Mr. John
In commending this amendment, I respond to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). He made an important point about ministerial pronouncements. I do not argue that they disappear, but obviously the process of percolation, even of circulars, leads to variation in proceduce. As legislators we can lay down the conditions on which a search warrant is to be granted and can seek to ensure that they are reasonable. However, we cannot always guarantee the administration of the law.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) forbore to comment on a case in which I suspect he thought that a particular decision was not satisfactory. There are cases in which the administration does not always go as we like. It is our job, as legislators, to lay down a reasonably stringent test. In this case the justices must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting both that there are indecent photographs of children on the premises and that such photographs either are being taken or have been taken on those premises, or are or have been shown there. Therefore, the test in law is pretty stringent. I hope that all those who have to administer the law will observe those tests when considering whether to grant a warrant.