The Police Service Social and Welfare Association is seeking to stop investigators from analysing its confidential files seized by investigators probing a cash for government houses scheme.
Lawyers representing the association appeared before High Court Judge Carol Gobin yesterday seeking an injunction for Fraud Squad investigators to return information found on computers seized during a raid of the association’s headquarters at the Besson Street Police Station on September 17.
The judge is expected to give her decision on Monday.
The association’s lead lawyer, Pamela Elder, SC, first took issue with the warrant that was used by detectives. She said the warrant required the approval of a magistrate and not a justice of the peace (JP) owing to the serious nature of the investigation.
She also argued that while the warrant only spoke about the search for documents, among the items seized were computers, hard drives and flash drives.
Elder argued that the detectives breached the procedure used in the execution of search warrants as they failed to take the seized items to the JP who signed off on the warrant.
While she admitted that some of the items had since been returned to her clients, she said the real complaint was that the private and sensitive information of its members stored on the devices was being cloned by investigators.
Elder said while the police were allowed a wide scope when collecting evidence in their investigation, this should not infringe on her client’s obligation under the Data Protection Act to secure its members’ confidential information.
She said her client was asking the court’s registry to take possession of the items until its substantive case over the legality of the raid is determined.
In response, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Byam challenged Elder’s concerns as premature.
“I’ll be shocked if something untoward were to happen. There is no charge that the sensitive information was being disseminated,” Byam said.
Byam said there were issues with the warrant, but he said these did not negate the fact that the raid was legal and that investigators were allowed to gather evidence not identified in the warrant once they had reason to believe that the items were used in the criminal offence under investigation.