In 1996 a warrant was issued in Germany for the arrest of Rottman in connection with alleged fraud offences. Metropolitan Police received a request from the German authorities for Rottman’s extradition. His precise whereabouts within England at the time were unknown. A provisional warrant for his arrest was issued by Bow Street magistrates’ court under s 8 (1) Extradition Act 1989 ( no search warrant issued). The officers then followed him into the driveway of the house where he had been living after spotting him as a result of a surveillance operation and he was arrested outside the door. Soon after, German police officers asked the senior officer present to search the house. Thereafter the officers entered and searched…show more content… The Counsel for the Police Commissioner appealed the decision on the grounds that search and seizure powers applied to both domestic and extraditable offences. Also that common law powers were merely supplanted and not replaced. He contended that the search was legal under Section 18 and 19 of PACE, and that there was no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR as search and seizure powers were lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim in a democratic society of crime prevention.
Ratio Decindi
Lord Hutton had affirmed the existence of common law powers to search the respondent’s premises after arresting him for extraditable offences by upholding the principles in Ghani v Jones and Osman particularly the lack of difference between warrants of arrest in domestic and extradition proceedings.
He also held that it is a well established principle that a rule of the common law is not extinguished by a statute unless the statute makes this clear by express provision or by clear implication. The powers for search and seizure in s18 and s19 of PACE only applied to domestic offences leaving common law powers unmolested for extraditable offences.
It was held that there was no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. Lord Hutton states that the arrest and the entry to perform the