Levy signals legal action over search warrant 

James Levy, KC, is to take civil legal action over a search warrant obtained in May 2020 by the Royal Gibraltar Police from the Magistrates Court by officers in an investigation in which he was a suspect at the time. 

Mr Levy, who was never arrested or charged and was later exonerated after the police investigation ran its normal course, announced the move in a statement on Monday. 

“Today, I have sent a formal letter before action to the Commissioner of Police notifying him of my intention to pursue civil proceedings for a serious breach of my constitutional right to privacy under section 7 of the Gibraltar Constitution, a right also connected to the rights of confidentiality enjoyed by my clients,” Mr Levy said in the statement, which was issued through Hassans, the law firm of which he is a senior partner.  

“The breach arises from the unlawful procurement and threatened execution of a search warrant in May 2020, which led to unlawful intrusions into my home and professional premises and the seizure of electronic devices containing legally privileged and confidential material.” 

“The Openshaw report made serious criticisms of the search warrant application and identified multiple procedural flaws, including a failure to make full and frank disclosure to the courts.”  

“It is important to note that the report also confirmed my complete exoneration from any wrongdoing.” 

Mr Levy said he would make no further comment at this time. 

CONTEXT 

In his report, Sir Peter Openshaw, the chairman of the McGrail Inquiry, said he was “entirely satisfied” that the application for the search warrant was made in good faith by the RGP’s officers, who strongly defended the decision. 

He noted too though that the application, which was granted by the court, was drafted by police without the benefit of legal advice, as was the practice at the time. 

Sir Peter Openshaw noted too that Mr Levy, in evidence to the Inquiry, had repeatedly stated his belief that the warrant was unlawful and had reserved his right to challenge it in court. 

In the report, Sir Peter Openshaw made no finding as to the warrant’s legality but identified aspects of the application which he said others might consider were procedural flaws. 

“I have already said that my Commission does not require – and indeed does not permit – me to rule as to legality of the warrant,” he said in the report.  

“However, I have found facts which might lead others to consider that the application for the search warrant, as presented to the court, had some procedural flaws.” 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Among other recommendations made in the report, Sir Peter said any application for a search warrant in high profile, sensitive or serious cases involving complex legal issues should be considered in detail by the Office of Criminal Prosecutions and Litigation, with experienced independent counsel instructed if necessary. 

He said the RGP, if challenged, should be able to rely on either the OCPL or outside counsel to defend its actions at public expense. 

In high profile or serious cases, Sir Peter also recommended that the RGP be represented by lawyers in any application for a search warrant and that sufficient time be allowed for a judge to consider written reasons for the application before any hearing and later in any court.