PARTY SEEKS EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE WARRANT IS INVALID

RYAN v RSPCA OF SA INC [2020] SASC  176 (21  September 2020) 

This case involves an appellant charges with the violation of the Animal Welfare Act where he contends that evidence against him should be excluded on the ground that it was obtained by an invalid warrant. 

Facts: 

The appellant appeals against convictions on 27 counts relating to the ill‑treatment of 27 dogs, contrary to  s 13(2) of the  Animal Welfare Act 1985 (the Act). Appellant complains that the Magistrate erred in the exercise of his discretion by failing to exclude the evidence obtained during the search of the premises. The appellant contends that the warrant was invalid because it did not contain the Magistrates Court seal.   

Issue:  

• Is the absence of the Maristrates Court seal makes a warrant invalid? 

Law: 

• the absence of any requirement in the Act, as well as in the Magistrates Court Act 1991(SA), the rules of the Magistrates Court or any relevant practice direction that a warrant under the Act be stamped with the seal of the Court. 
• 31D- Warrant Procedures 

(4) (f) the warrant is to be taken to have been issued, and comes into force, when signed by the magistrate. 

Analysis: 

The trial Magistrate found that there was no legal requirement that the warrant contain the Magistrates Court seal upon it. He referred to the absence of any requirement in the Act, as well as in the Magistrates Court Act 1991, the rules of the Magistrates Court or any relevant practice direction that a warrant under the Act be stamped with the seal of the Court. 

There is no explicit requirement that the seal of the Magistrates Court must be affixed to a warrant under the Act. The only statutory requirement is, by s31D(4)(f) of the Act, that “the warrant is to be taken to have been issued, and comes into force, when signed by the magistrate”. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the warrant was “valid on its face”. 

#warrant #evidence