Judiciary’s summary of G Lam J’s #judgement
1. The police have pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate obtained from a hospital certain medical records relating to the applicant.
2. The applicant seeks a declaration that the police’s refusal to produce the warrant to her is in breach of Article 35 of the Basic Law and Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. This application for judicial review raises the narrow question of whether the fact that the search warrant has not been produced to the applicant has effectively obstructed her right of access to the courts. It is not about whether the police should have applied for the warrant, or whether the magistrate should have granted the warrant, or whether the warrant should be set aside.
4. The applicant does not have a free‑standing right to the production of the warrant on demand either under statute or common law. There are existing mechanisms in the law for the applicant to seek, on proper grounds, production of the warrant in the context of actual or intended proceedings to impugn it.
5. The applicant has so far not utilised these mechanisms. There are legal avenues potentially open to the applicant for impugning the validity of the warrant and not only for recovering damages, which the applicant has so far not utilised.
6. The fact that the respondent has not produced the warrant to the applicant on demand does not mean her right of access to the courts has been infringed.
7. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.