The Justice system comprises of entities which serve to prevent, detect, prosecute, adjudicate and discipline criminal activities. Globally, Justice systems aim to ensure citizen security simultaneously without infringement on the citizen’s rights. The Due Process model is a model which recognizes that the state must respect all the legal rights of a person when carrying out justice. The Due process model questions the criminal justice system as to whether there is a miscarriage of justice as highlighted in Regina (Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. This case questioned whether there was an infringement of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act by the Police upon the Claimant whereby the Police overextended their common law power in performing a search and seizure without a warrant.
In the case of Rottman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Mr. Michael Rottman (the claimant), a German Businessman was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities involving an East German Power Company. The claimant was accused of having access to stolen funds and no longer resided in Germany from 1995 subsequently on December 27, 1996 a court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest. A request was made by the German authorities on 13 September 2000 to the Metropolis Police via Interpol for the extradition of Mr. Rottman to Germany. The Claimant resided in the South of England at the time of the issue of the extradition request. A provisional warrant for his arrest was issued for alleged conspiracy to defraud on September 22, 2000 at the Bow Street Magistrate’s Court under section 8 (1) of the Extradition Act of 1989.
After police investigation and surveillance Mr. Rottman was located in Henley-on-Thames on September 23, 2000 and found to be residing at Hazelmere, High Wycombe. The police arrested the accused pursuant to warrant in the driveway, a few yards from his front door. The residence in which the accused occupied was then searched and items deemed evidence by the Metropolitan police were seized. Mr. Rottman subsequently sought legal action against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the grounds that the entry and search which took place was an infringement on his rights under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and that the Statutory powers of entry, search and seizure without a warrant of Part II of the Police and Criminal Evidence 1984 Act was not applicable in the case of an extradition.
Clare Montgomery QC and Julian Knowles for the claimant argued that the Police officers were exercising their common power so far as they were lawfully arresting a person 17(1) (a) of PACE but held no powers under Sections 18 and 19 to seize items since it was an extradition matter and therefore breached article 8 (2) of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Hope of Craighead agreed with Lord Rodger of Earls ferry that the sections 18 and 19 of PACE were not...