David Matthew

Public Law

David represented the police over a search warrant under s.8 PACE that went from the Magistrates, via the Crown Court, to the Supreme Court Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court & Chief Constable for Hertfordshire [2018] A.C. 236; (Supreme Court).

Search warrants – PACE 1984, section 8 – judicial review – CJPA 2001, section 59 — disclosure of Information – PII redactions – disclosed materials not sufficient to establish lawfulness of warrant – PII materials deployed as evidence – closed evidence procedure – Al-Rawi not applicable – no minimum level of disclosure.

The principles of decision of the Supreme Court applies beyond PACE search and seizure warrants to warrants under other statutes.

As a spin off from his criminal practice he advises on judicial reviews of Crown Prosecution Service decisions to take over and discontinue Private Prosecutions.

David is regularly instructed as Independent Counsel, reviewing seized material for Legally Privileged and other Special Material. He has, for example, experience of the various classifications of privileged material, loss and waiver of privilege, and questions of joint or common privilege. He has advised on what constitutes ‘journalistic material’ in the world of Facebook and blogging. He has been instructed by the SFO, the Metropolitan Police and other forces. David was instructed by the Metropolitan Police in the newspaper phone hacking investigation Operation Weeting and several of its off shoot operations (Kalmyk, Elveden, Pinetree etc.).

He is instructed to attend searches both on domestic and commercial premises.