Paragraphs 1–3: Searches
115.These paragraphs correspond to paragraphs 2–2A of Schedule 7 to the PTA and have the same effect, bringing together the provisions for dwellings in paragraph 2 and non-residential premises in paragraph 2A. They deal with warrants permitting search for and seizure of ordinary material (as opposed to “excepted material” as defined in paragraph 4).
116.In the PTA, paragraph 2(1)(a) defined relevant material in relation to “the investigation” – that is, the investigation for which the warrant was issued. The equivalent provision in the Act, paragraph 1(3)(a), includes in the definition anything likely to be of substantial value to “a terrorist investigation”, that is, any terrorist investigation. This is intended to enable a police officer to seize and retain not only material relevant to the investigation for which the warrant was issued but any material relevant to investigation of any of the matters specified in section 32 without having to go back to court for a further warrant. A similar change is made throughout the rest of the Schedule.
117.Sub-paragraph (5)(c) of paragraph 1 gives the judge discretion over the necessity for a warrant in the particular case. This sub-paragraph replaces the conditions in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 to the PTA. The reasoning behind this is best illustrated by a hypothetical example. Suppose the police need to find, seize and retain certain material on certain premises. They successfully contact a person entitled to grant entry to the premises and access to the material. That person is content to grant them such entry and access, but is not content for the material to be seized and retained. The police therefore need a warrant to authorise seizing and retaining the material; but the conditions in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 to the PTA are not met, so under the PTA the justice of the peace cannot issue a warrant. It is to cover this eventuality that, in replicating this provision, a more general test that “the issue of a warrant is likely to be necessary in the circumstances of the case” has been substituted.
