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.