A 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court of Cyprus annulling a police search warrant at a law firm is being highlighted as a key precedent, as the court prepares to decide whether to allow a challenge by lawyer Nicos Clerides over a warrant issued in connection with the “Sandy” case.
The earlier case concerned a police investigation into drug-related offences in September 2023, during which two individuals were arrested. According to the court’s findings, evidence emerged of communications between detainees and third parties, while two mobile phones were discovered in a prisoner’s cell. Authorities were granted access to stored private communications on those devices.
Among the data retrieved was a photograph of a detention affidavit previously submitted by police in court to secure remand orders for suspects. Subsequent investigations produced testimony alleging that a lawyer had sent the document to a suspect.
Certiorari challenge
On that basis, police obtained a search warrant on 4 October 2023 targeting the lawyer’s office, seeking documents, mobile phones and electronic devices that could constitute evidence of criminal offences, including interference in judicial proceedings. A lower court had ruled there was reasonable cause to believe such material was present.
The lawyers involved applied for a prerogative writ of certiorari, arguing that the warrant was overly broad and lacked safeguards to protect legal professional privilege - a principle protected under domestic law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
They contended that the police affidavit effectively sought two specific items - the lawyer’s mobile phone and a copy of the detention affidavit - and that the warrant should have been strictly limited to those items or, at minimum, included clear procedural safeguards to protect confidential material.
Warrant annulled
The Supreme Court accepted the application and annulled the warrant on two main grounds:
- It had been issued in excessively broad terms, extending beyond the specific items justified by the investigation.
- It failed to include effective measures to prevent uncontrolled access to material covered by legal professional privilege.
The court reiterated that searches of law offices require “exceptional caution”, referencing established case law which calls for strict limits on the scope of searches, the presence of independent observers or other safeguards to prevent unnecessary exposure of confidential information.
While the court accepted that there were reasonable grounds to seek the lawyer’s phone and the affidavit copy, it found that the warrant instead authorised a wide-ranging seizure of “documents, mobile phones and electronic devices” without clearly identifying the evidence sought or limiting access to sensitive material.
Safeguards and case law
The ruling drew on previous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, including Niemetz v Germany, André v France and Roemen & Schmit v Luxembourg, which stress the need for safeguards when searching premises protected by professional secrecy.
It also cited domestic case law recognising that, while lawyers are not immune from criminal investigation, there must be a “clear, substantiated and substantive link” between the alleged offence and the lawyer’s actions or materials to justify intrusion into their professional environment.
The court further noted that a general reference in the warrant to respecting legal privilege was insufficient, as it did not function as a binding limitation. This left open the possibility of wide-ranging searches and access to sensitive professional data beyond the original scope of the investigation.
The warrant was ultimately annulled, with costs awarded to the applicants.
Clerides case pending
In the separate case involving Clerides, the Supreme Court is currently considering whether to grant leave for a full challenge to the search warrant issued for his home and office as part of the “Sandy” investigation.
If leave is granted, the substantive application will proceed to a new hearing. The court’s decision will be issued after hearing arguments from the Law Office of the Republic of Cyprus.
Should the warrant be annulled, any evidence obtained would have to be returned and could not be used as part of the prosecution’s case.
This article was originally published on the Greek-language Politis website.