00:00Well, it's surprising and unsurprising at the same time because the police don't have a good track record in applying
00:07for search warrants.
00:08There was a major review a few years ago which uncovered all kinds of flaws and they changed their processes
00:14and they were meant to have ironed out all of these problems.
00:19And you'd think in a really high profile case like this, it would have gone through so many levels of
00:25scrutiny that they couldn't make a mistake.
00:27But they did. And the reason it's unsurprising is, unfortunately, the police just regularly make silly mistakes.
00:34What went wrong? They said to the judge that they, as far as I can tell from the judgment,
00:39they told the judge that they were confident that they wouldn't be seizing any material that required extra protections under
00:46the law.
00:46So that's normally journalistic material, material held in confidence, especially sensitive material like health records, for example.
00:54They said to the judge, we don't think we're going to seize anything like that.
00:58So we don't need the special kind of search warrant that entitles us to seize that.
01:02And it turns out they did, because I assume that Andrew's lawyers persuaded them that they had, in fact, seized
01:09confidential material that the warrant didn't cover.
01:12They could have got a warrant for that material, but they didn't.
01:15So we don't need the special kind of search warrant.
