Chief Justice ruled yesterday.

Magistrate the Wor. John Judge failed to properly consider whether materials covered by the two warrants were subject to lawyer-client privilege and should not have been seized, Chief Justice the Hon. Austin Ward said.

And one of the warrants was based on false information sworn by Police, he said.

Chief Justice Ward also awarded costs to Mr. Hall, though he agreed to hear arguments on that point at a later date.

The Crown said it would appeal the decisions on both warrants.

Mr. Hall said he was pleased with the decision and would have more to say later. During the hearing, Hall and Associates lawyer Mr. Robin McMillan said substantial damages could be sought if it was found the search warrants were illegal.

On October 22, Police served two search warrants on Hall and Associates on Front Street and seized materials they said related to a drug trafficking and money laundering investigation.

Mr. Hall asked for a judicial review of the warrants issued by Mr. Judge, and the Supreme Court ordered that the materials seized be held by the Registrar until the review was completed.

The materials, which included files, diaries, and computer disks, would remain with the Registrar pending appeal or further order of the court, Mr. Justice Ward said yesterday.

On January 14, the Chief Justice quashed the second of the two warrants.

Yesterday, he also quashed the first warrant and gave his reasons for quashing both warrants.

Mr. Judge issued the first search warrant on October 21, upon an application under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act from Police Supt. George Rose.

As required under the Act, Mr. Judge said he felt there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Mr. Hall had benefitted from drug trafficking, there was material on the premises likely to be of substantial value to the investigation, and a warrant was needed to gain entry or avoid prejudicing the investigation.

However, "the Magistrate would have known that the premises proposed to be searched were the premises of practising attorneys and should also have known that...legal privilege would attach to client files in the office unless such files were kept with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose,'' Mr.

Justice Ward said.

"How he considered the question of legal privilege and concluded that it did not apply is not apparent from the record.''.

In a November 16 affidavit, Mr. Judge said he was satisfied that Supt. Rose was mindful of the need to consider legal privilege, he noted. But the Magistrate's duty to consider that legal question could not be transferred to the Police.

The warrant authorised seizure of records related to Elmhurst Productions and Elmhurst Products, as well as appointment diaries and address and telephone books of Mr. Hall's from 1986 to 1991.

When Supt. Rose and ten other officers presented the warrant at Hall and Associates shortly before 9 a.m. on October 22, the Elmhurst files were handed over. Told that diaries from 1986 to 1990 would be in Mr. Hall's former law office, Police "seized the diary for 1991 and, although not mentioned in the warrant, that for 1992 as well.'' The Chief Justice continued: "Not content with taking possession of the material they ostensibly were seeking, the Police then proceeded to look at, scan, read and note material in other files.'' Supt. Rose said they were looking for materials related to Elmhurst which might have been misfiled.

Notes and telephone messages on Mr. Hall's desk were also read.

"In support of this wholesale reading of client files in an attorney's office the Solicitor General argued that the Police had to peruse the files to determine whether or not they were subject to legal privilege,'' Mr. Justice Ward said.

"It is beyond argument that no party can be bowler and umpire, or prosecutor and judge, at one and the same time,'' he said. "It may well be that in some cases files will have to be perused so that the issue of legal privilege can be determined.

"But the proper authority to conduct such perusal is not the Police.'' At 12.50 p.m. that day, Supt. Rose returned to Mr. Judge and obtained a second warrant under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act 1988. The second warrant listed 13 specific files in addition to the Elmhurst files.

The Chief Justice noted much of the language used in the second warrant was the same as that in the first warrant, despite the fact "the circumstances were somewhat altered.'' Supt. Rose stated that it was either not possible to communicate with anyone who could grant entry to Hall and Associates, or entry would not be granted unless a warrant was produced, or the investigation might be prejudiced unless Police gained immediate entry upon their arrival.

When that information was sworn, "the Police officers were at the premises still in the process of conducting the search ostensibly under the authority of the (first) search warrant...and persons at the premises were not obstructing the search,'' the Chief Justice said.

Therefore, the information sworn was "untrue and would have been known by (Supt. Rose) to be untrue at the time of swearing the information had he taken care to read carefully the facts he was stating on oath.'' He continued: "The second warrant, based as it was on false information, cannot be allowed to stand.

"Moreover, the ease with which it was obtained of itself raises questions concerning the issue of the first warrant.''