Case Note on Rottman Very Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Essay
1480 Words6 Pages
Regina (Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
House of Lords
16 May 2002  UKHL 20  2 A.C. 692
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division ruled that the decision of three police officers to enter the claimant’s (Michael Rottman) house was unlawful and in violation of the claimant’s right under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms and that all items seized should be returned. The Police Commissioner appealed to the House of Lords.
MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE: A provisional arrest warrant was issued by the Bow Street Magistrate Court under section 8 (1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 for the arrest of Michael Rottman in connection with fraud offences in Germany. The respondent was arrested a few yards from his front door by three police officers. They then entered and searched the house, taking away items they suspected could be linked to the alleged offences.
RATIO OF THE CASE: Pursuant to an arrest warrant issued under section 8 of the Extradition Act 1989, a police officer who has arrested a person on his premises has power to search those premises and seize any goods or documents believed to be material evidence of the case.
SUMMARY OF LORD HUTTON’S REASONING: Lord Hutton based his judgment on the common law power before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984(PACE) was enacted and the provisions of PACE after it had been enacted. He considered the issues on the basis that the police officers seized