Man with no TV wins court case over search warrant

they claim, have mounted a campaign of harassment against them.

Now Mr David Guest, 45, is threatening to sue the licensing

authorities for damages in a civil action if they refuse to pay a

five-figure sum in compensation.

Mr Guest, an electronics engineer from Newmills Crescent, Balerno,

Edinburgh, was charged with obstructing licensing inquiry officers in

the course of their duty when they arrived at his home with a search

warrant. He refused to let them in.

In July last year, he asked three Judges in the Justiciary Appeal

Court to suspend the warrant on the grounds that it had been illegally

obtained.

He alleged that inquiry officers had committed perjury to obtain the

warrant from a sheriff by claiming that they had seen a flickering light

coming from an upstairs bedroom window at his home. Mr Guest, who lives

with his wife Alison, a music lecturer, and their two children,

described this allegation as a complete fabrication.

The appeal court ordered a hearing of evidence into how the warrant

had been obtained and Mr Guest cited six witnesses, including the two TV

licensing officers who claimed to have seen the flickering light.

Yesterday, however, Lord Justice Clerk Ross, sitting with Lords

McCluskey and Morison, were told that the hearing had been put off

because the licensing authorities now conceded that there had not been

enough evidence to justify the granting of the warrant.

Ironically, yesterday's appeal was heard in the presence of television

cameras, in place for a dummy run, following Lord Hope's decision last

summer to allow limited televising of proceedings in the High Court and

the Court of Session.

Mr Matthew Clarke, QC, for the licensing authority, maintained that

the two officers who had called at Mr Guest's home, genuinely believed

that they had seen a flickering light which could have come from a

television.

It was now conceded, however, that even if this were true, it was not

a sufficient basis for obtaining a warrant. It was accepted that there

was no reasonable basis for believing that the light was from a TV set.

It could have come from a whole range of other things.

Mr Clarke emphasised that the licensing authority did not accept Mr

Guest's allegation that the officers had been guilty of ''blatant and

malicious fabrication'' to obtain the warrant.

Mr Roderick Macdonald, QC, Advocate-depute, confirmed that the

obstruction charge had now been dropped and described the circumstances

of the case as ''quite regrettable''. If the sheriff had been told the

whole history of Mr Guest and the licensing authorities, he might well

have understood why Mr Guest was obstreperous on the doorstep.

Mr Guest told the court that the case had to be seen against the

background of 400,000 households in the UK who did not have TV sets but

were ''routinely hounded'' by the licensing authorities.

He alleged that the licensing authorities had conceded the case to

spare themselves the embarrassment of evidence being led in court.

Lord Ross said the licensing authorities now conceded that the warrant

had been obtained on inadequate information and the court awarded full

expenses to Mr Guest (which he estimates at #5500.)

Asked after the hearing if he thought inquiry officers would moderate

their behaviour as a result of the case Mr Guest replied: ''I jolly well

hope so.''

He added: ''They have been challenging people without reason to

declare that they are innocent of the crime of not owning a television

set. If the police were to do that there would be public outrage.''