TELEVISION licensing inquiry officers were accused yesterday of
deliberately hounding a family who claim they have never owned a
television set in 17 years.
Three appeal court Judges were told that the campaign of harassment
ended when licensing officers arrived at the home of electronics
engineer David Guest armed with a search warrant.
When 44-year-old Mr Guest refused to let them in he was charged with
obstructing them in the course of their duty. His case has been set down
for a hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in October.
Yesterday, Mr Guest asked three Judges in the Justiciary Appeal Court
to suspend the search warrant on the ground that it had been illegally
obtained.
Mr Guest, who lives in Newmills Crescent, Balerno, near Edinburgh,
with his wife, Alison, a music lecturer, and their two children,
admitted to the court yesterday that it might be regarded as slightly
eccentric these days not to possess a television set.
However, for the past 17 years neither he nor his wife had owned a
set.
At first he had answered letters from the licensing authorities
telling them that he did not have a set, but eventually told them to
stop bothering him and stopped answering their letters. This had led to
inquiry officers calling round to his house. He said the calls were made
by ''unsavoury and heavily-built men who were none too polite''.
His wife had felt sufficiently intimidated to answer their questions
for a number of years, but in April 1991 he had answered the door
himself and given the inquiry officers ''a short lecture on the meaning
of civil liberties''.
In September last year he closed the door, saying he did not wish
speak to them, but they continued to ring the bell and shout through the
letterbox.
They informed him in an aggressive tone they could get the police on
to him, then in a ''sneering'' tone warned him they could get a warrant.
A search warrant was granted, but Mr Guest alleged this had been done
on false grounds. One of the officers had stated on oath to the sheriff
that he had seen a flickering light in an upstairs room which could have
come from a TV set.
Mr Guest described this claim as a complete fabrication and said that
when they tried to search his house last October on the basis of the
warrant he refused to let them in.
He claimed that the inquiry officer who had obtained the warrant had
done so by committing perjury. He added: ''It was pure malice towards me
because I had refused to speak to them.''
Mr Mark Fitzpatrick, counsel for the licensing authority, told the
court that the inquiry officer needed only a reasonable suspicion to
obtain a warrant. In this case, the only ground for suspicion was the
flickering light in an upstairs room. He explained that house calls were
made after computer records showed no record of a licence and letters
went unanswered.
Lord Ross, Lord Justice Clerk, said he found it extraordinary that a
man was still being pursued even though he had told the authorities for
years and years that he did not have a television. He asked why
householders should be subjected to the same question year after year
when they had already answered it.
Lord Grieve asked why, in spite of being told year after year by Mr
Guest that he never had, and never would have, a TV set, the authorities
could not just accept his word for it.
Mr Roderick Macdonald, QC, Advocate-depute, said the case raised an
issue of very great importance relating to the liberty of the subject.
Mr Guest was complaining that he had been hounded for years by the
licensing authority and that the warrant had been obtained on false
grounds.
Mr Macdonald wondered if the sheriff would have been satisfied there
were grounds for granting the warrant if he had been informed about Mr
Guest's 17-year history. He asked the court to continue the case for the
Crown to consider its position, and the court agreed.
After the hearing, Mr Guest said he could not understand.
No date for the continued hearing has been fixed.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article