documents were examined and seized during a Police raid on a lawyer's office.

Mr. Julian Hall has asked the Supreme Court to quash two search warrants used to seize documents at the Front Street offices of Hall and Associates on October 22.

Until a ruling is made, Chief Justice the Hon. Mr. Austin Ward has ordered the materials sealed at the Supreme Court.

Police secured the warrants from Magistrate the Wor. John Judge under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act. They believed Mr. Hall, a former MP, was using his law firm to launder money for drug dealers, court has been told.

Normally, communication between a lawyer and a client is considered privileged. Under the Act, Police were not to seize any privileged documents while executing the search warrants.

Mr. Justice Ward repeatedly asked Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade how Police would know which documents were privileged and which were not.

Looking at the 13 individual and company names listed on the second of the two warrants, Mr. Justice Ward said he knew that some of the names were clients of Mr. Hall's.

"He would have received instructions from the clients,'' Mr. Justice Ward said. Those instructions in respect to the conduct of the case must be privileged. That is the very material that has been seized.'' Mr. Meade agreed that some privileged material might have been taken inadvertently by Police. But if that was the case, it would not make the warrants invalid and mean that other items should be returned.

No legal privilege applied when communication with a lawyer was for a criminal purpose, as was alleged, Mr. Meade said.

Since no privileged materials were to be removed from the law office, it was the duty of Police to examine files at the office and determine whether their contents were privileged or not, Mr. Meade said. That was why a Police speed scan of the general file room was required.

The Chief Justice said Mr. Meade was suggesting Police could read every file in a lawyer's office to determine whether they were privileged. "That would be so wrong that it couldn't be right.'' Mr. Meade said that was what Parliament intended when it drafted the 1988 Drug Trafficking Suppression Act, and "that is the risk a client who deals with a lawyer that falls under suspicion takes.'' Mr. Justice Ward also expressed concern about Police reading documents, deciding they were privileged, and then putting them down. In the case of persons charged with crimes, "it means that the defence is now in the hands of the prosecution,'' he said.

Also yesterday, Mr. Justice Ward refused a request by Mr. Meade to file a further affidavit from Police Supt. George Rose, who supervised the search.

The affidavit would have set out some of the information upon which Mr. Judge agreed to issue the warrants, Mr. Meade said.

After hearing objections from Mr. Robin McMillan, the lawyer for Mr. Hall, Mr.

Justice Ward said it would be unfair to allow Mr. Meade to file a further affidavit "after the weaknesses in (his) case have been exposed.'' Mr. McMillan charged that the Crown's case was in "chaos,'' and that from start to finish they "have not known what they are doing.'' Named in the first search warrant was information related to Elmshurst Productions and Elmshurst Products. Named in the second warrant was information related to Larry Ebbin, Dexter Dillas, Rosalva Miranda, Daniel Latini, Gregory Wales, Peter Woolf, Thaddeus Ted Ming, Amulion Investments Ltd., Vulture Holdings NV, Suisse Francais Treuhand Holdings Co. Ltd., Safaris Investments Inc., Citco Curacao International Trust Co. NV, and Fulham Holdings NV.

The hearing resumes this morning.