challenge to the quashing of search warrants at the law offices of Hall and Associates.

Four days of submissions in the appeal by the Attorney General's Chambers wrapped up yesterday morning. London lawyer Mr. Michael Tugendhat, QC, represented the Crown, and Hall and Associates lawyer Mr. Robin McMillan represented lawyer and former MP Mr. Julian Hall.

The appeal stems from two Supreme Court rulings by Chief Justice the Hon.

Austin Ward in January and March which struck down as illegal two search warrants issued by Magistrate the Wor. John Judge on October 21 and 22.

Police entered Mr. Hall's Front Street office with the first warrant on October 22 in a drug trafficking and money laundering investigation. During the course of seizing documents listed in the first warrant, police saw other materials "likely to be of substantial value'' to the investigation and went back to Mr. Judge for a second warrant out of "an abundance of caution,'' court documents and statements by Mr. Tugendhat claimed during the past week.

"Whether Mr. Hall is guilty of drug trafficking offences is neither here nor there,'' Mr. Tugendhat told the three-judge Court of Appeal yesterday, saying the question to be decided is whether Mr. Judge had "reasonable grounds to suspect'' the offences as having occurred based on the evidence given to him by police.

One of the Chief Justice's main criticisms of Mr. Judge was that he had not shown how he had or if he had considered the question of how "legal privilege'' might apply to the materials being seized under the warrants.

Mr. Tugendhat used various sections of the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act 1988 to show that: legal privilege is negated if the advice is used for criminal purposes, as was suspected in the investigation; that most of the material being sought -- such as financial records, appointment diaries, and telephone address books -- would not have been covered by privilege even if not used for criminal purposes; and that it would have been impossible for a magistrate issuing a search warrant to determine what items might be subject to privilegeor not.

He also argued that officers already in the law office serving out the first warrant had the authority to "seize and retain any material, other than items subject to legal privilege, which is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the warrant was issued.'' He also used an affidavit sworn by Mr. Judge to argue that Mr. Judge had met all the requirements of relevant laws is satisfying himself that there were "reasonable grounds to suspect'' that the accused activities were occurring.

Mr. McMillan argued that Mr. Judge never properly documented how he considered the files to which privilege might have applied. Further, he also argued that police executing the first warrant, if they had the right to seize documents listed in the first warrant, gave up that right by going back and obtaining the second warrant.

Mr. Tugendhat yesterday told the court that Mr. McMillan had failed to show how any of the precedents he had cited were comparable to the present case.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Huggins, one of three judges presiding over the hearing, said the court hopes to render a decision at 2 p.m. next Friday. The Hon. Mr. Justice Telford Georges and The Hon. Sir James Astwood are the other justices presiding over the hearing.

The materials seized under the warrants have been held by the Registrar pending the outcome of the proceedings. The only further course of action following next week's decision could be an appeal to the Privy Council in London.

Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade said after the hearing yesterday that officials would have to wait and see what the outcome of the decision is before deciding on their next course of action.