PeanutGallery wrote:The question would be whether the warrant, being a decision made by the courts, would be considered personal information, or if it would be considered to be like a Judgement and part of the public record.
I've never heard the argument that a warrant is a public document. I don't think the argument would stand up (in the UK).
Some warrants need to be shown. For example, search warrants under
PACE 1984 s16:
(5)Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present at the time when a constable seeks to execute a warrant to enter and search them, the constable—
(a)shall identify himself to the occupier and, if not in uniform, shall produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable;
(b)shall produce the warrant to him; and
(c)shall supply him with a copy of it.
Possession warrants are different. I can find no rules that say Tom is entitled to see any warrants of possession. See:
CPR 83.26
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
Courts Act 2003
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010 s2
The Dwelling Houses (Execution of Possession Orders by Mortgagees) Regulations 2010
A warrant of possession is an instruction from the court to the enforcement officers. The validity of a possession warrant stands or falls according to the validity of the underlying possession order and notice of eviction. In that respect, it is quite different to a search warrant which is a standalone document and not reliant on previous court decisions.
If Tom seriously believes there was no possession warrant, he could take legal action against the enforcement officers. If they then show it to the court, the legal action will fail. But Tom doesn't seriously believe this. He just wants to show the warrant doesn't comply with rules that he (or Guy or Mr Ebert) have invented.
I think there is a general principle that we should not be entitled to see warrants that are against
other people. I might ask to see any warrants against my neighbour, but the courts, enforcement officers and police should deny my request. (I admit this is a somewhat socio-political principle that some may disagree with.)
The argument for
not yielding to Tom's demand for the warrant is that it is a blind alley. If the pre-conditions were fulfilled, which they were, the possession warrant was a mere formality. If the court or enforcement agents show him the warrant, he will then demand a fingerprint analysis to prove that no judge ever touched the paper or some other spurious nonsense. There has to be a limit to how far the courts will accommodate SovCit fantasies.
And we all know the warrant was a fabricated excuse for the actions. If the warrant ticked all the SovCit boxes, another excuse would have been found.
