Rottman v commissioners of police for the Metropolis
“Extradition search is lawful, lords say common law power is still available”
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
MATERIAL FACTS- the respondent, Mr. Micheal Rottman , is a German businessman and was suspected of fraud in Germany. A court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest on the 27th December 1996. The respondent left Germany at the end of 1995. On 13TH September 2000 the metropolitan police received a request from the German authorities via Interpol, for the respondent’s extradition to Germany. On 22nd September 2000 a provisional warrant for the respondents arrest was issued by the Bow street magistrate’s court under section 8(1) of the extradition Act 1989. The respondent was arrested a few yards from his front door. Though in section 17 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984,the police had to enter the grounds of the house to arrest according to the warrant . After a short period of time two German police officers arrived and asked Detective Sergeant Loudon, the senior Metropolitan police officer to search the house and seized a number of properties in it. The respondent brought an application for judicial review against the appellant and the home secretary in respect of the decision by the police to enter his home in Hazlemere to search and seize items.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY-This case was previous in the queen’s bench divisional court where the court ruled in favor of the respondent Mr.Micheal Rottman. 1) declared that the entry and search carried out by the police on 23rd September 2000 were unlawful,2) declared that the respondent’s rights under article 8 of the European conventions for the protections of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms had been violated,3)ordered that there be a mandatory order requiring the police to deliver up to the claimant all the items seized on 23sep 200, 4)ordered that the respondent claim for damages be adjourned for directions and a hearing before a single judge in the administrative courts.
In the Divisional Court Lord Justice Brooke said that in R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p. Osman Lord Justice Lloyd had said:
Is there any difference between a warrant of arrest in domestic proceedings and a provisional warrant under section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967? We can see none.
His Lordship found it impossible to interpret Part II of the 1984 Act as providing any saving for the common-law power identified in Osman
Parliament intended s. 18 to provide in codified form for the full extent of a...