October Police raid on the law offices of Mr. Julian Hall.

The Hon. Mr. Austin Ward reserved judgment on whether to quash the other warrant Police used.

And he suspended for 21 days an order that items seized under the quashed warrant be returned to Mr. Hall. Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade had asked that the seized items not be returned until the Crown decided whether to appeal the ruling.

Mr. Justice Ward said he would release his reasons later. He would also listen to arguments about awarding costs.

The decision means Police must return to Mr. Hall nearly everything they seized from Hall and Associates on Front Street on October 22.

The warrants were obtained from Magistrate the Wor. John Judge under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act. The court was told that Police believed Mr. Hall, a former MP, was using his law firm to launder money for drug dealers.

Seized under the second warrant, which Mr. Justice Ward quashed, were a copy of the office's computer disc related to financial accounts, a sealed copy of the office's word processing computer disc, and 13 files, among other items.

The only items listed as seized under the first warrant were files related to Elmshurst Productions and Mr. Hall's appointment diaries for 1991 and 1992.

All the items were earlier ordered secured at the Supreme Court until Mr.

Justice Ward ruled on the legality of the warrants.

Mr. Robin McMillan, Mr. Hall's lawyer, described the issuing of the search warrants and the Police raid as "a disaster.'' During the weeklong hearing in Supreme Court, he suggested Mr. Hall would seek substantial damages if it was shown the action was illegal.

It was argued that the second warrant Mr. Judge issued was based on false information. Although the second warrant indicated that Police needed to gain access to Mr. Hall's law office, officers were still inside the lawyer's office under the power of the first warrant when the second warrant was issued.

Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade argued that Police Supt. George Rose did not need the second warrant to seize the extra items he wanted. The officer sought it "out of an abundance of caution.'' Mr. Judge should have struck out a section of the warrant that said Police needed to gain access to the office. But that error did not invalidate the second warrant, Mr. Meade argued.

Mr. McMillan said the first warrant was also invalid because Mr. Judge did not consider whether the items sought were privileged as communication between a lawyer and a client. Under the Act, privileged items were not to be seized.

Yesterday, Mr. Meade conceded that the word processing computer disc should be returned because Police did not determine whether it contained privileged material before they seized it. In an affidavit, office financial controller Mr. Stephen Gibbons said the disc contained letters, billing data, research and legal opinions related to Mr. Hall's clients "past and present.'' While Mr. Meade argued it was up to Police to determine what items were legally privileged, the Chief Justice said that would make them "judge and prosecutor at the same time.'' Seizure of the financial records was authorised under the first search warrant. But they were listed as seized under the second warrant because of delays in making a copy of the computer disc. Mr. Meade unsuccessfully argued that the computer disc was actually seized under the first warrant, despite the fact it was listed as seized under the second one.

Files seized under the second warrant were titled Larry Ebbin, Dexter Dillas, Rosalva Miranda, Daniel Latini, Gregory Wales, Peter Woolf, Thaddeus Ted Ming, Amulion Investments Ltd., Vulture Holdings NV, Suisse Francais Treuhand Holdings Co. Ltd., Safaris Investments Inc., Citco Curacao International Trust Co. NV, and Fulham Holdings NV.