in a raid on his firm began yesterday with claims that a detective lied and a magistrate did not follow proper procedure.

The warrants were taken out in connection with a criminal investigation under the Drug Trafficking Suppression Act.

This was revealed in Supreme Court by the former MP's lawyer Mr. Robin McMillan who was outlining Police reasons for the raid.

"The appellant (Mr. Hall) being a person believed to be concerned with drug trafficking,'' Mr. McMillan said.

The lawyer's claim that Supt. George Rose had to "impeach his own honour'' to obtain the search warrants prompted an angry response from the Crown.

Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade said he would "not be delicate'' either when it was his chance to deal with the action.

Mr. Hall "was after all a man suspected by officers of committing a serious criminal offence'', he said.

The hearing got underway mid-morning after Chief Justice the Hon. Austin Ward ruled the media and public should not be barred from attending.

He made the ruling after in-camera submissions from Mr. McMillan and Mr.

Meade, representing the Police Commissioner and Magistrate the Wor. John Judge who were both named in Mr. Hall's writ.

Police had obtained two search warrants for documents relating to Elmshurst Productions, Mr. McMillan said.

But during their "curious'' notion of a speed scan of files, the file of Larry Ebbin (who was acquitted after a recent drugs trial), and others that the warrant did not apply to, were read by a detective, he claimed.

There were two different accounts of what happened, Mr. McMillan said. It was his information that Supt. Rose, who led the raid along with 10 officers, had agreed to stop reading unrelated files on two occasions.

But Supt. Rose denied this in his affidavit.

Mr. McMillan charged the officer was "lying''.

He submitted that the length of time it took the search was consistent with the time it would have taken officers to read the files rather than "speed scan'' them.

The search took place from 8.40 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. on October 22, during which time his and his client's Front Street firm, Hall and Associates, was closed to the public.

Mr. Hall was not present during the search but after being contacted, told his administrator and secretary to comply with the wishes of Police.

Mr. McMillan argued Mr. Judge did not follow proper procedure when he issued the warrants by failing to give careful consideration to access pre-conditions and legal privilege over the fact Police wanted to raid a law firm.

And Supt. Rose had not supplied him with enough evidence, he claimed. In the case of the second warrant, asked for shortly after the first, Mr. Judge basically "just gave (it) to them)'', he claimed.

Police had gone back to court while some officers remained at the firm.

Because the second warrant was drafted in consequence to whatever information was properly or improperly gleaned from the first, he said, Police wrongly "came back for a second bite'', Mr. McMillan said.

The fact Mr. Judge had not spelled out which access provision(s) he based granting of the warrants on was "suspicious''.

"The manner in which the affidavit was drafted leaves much to be desired and leaves us with the impression proper procedure was not followed,'' he said.

Officers had secured items after reading the Elmshurst files and Supt. Rose "had no business'' going back for a second warrant, he claimed. They should have recognised and respected the rights of Mr. Hall's clients.

"It is a devastating indictment on the way in which warrants are executed that it became necessary for Supt. Rose to impeach his own honour ..,'' he said.

The remainder of Supt. Rose's affidavit in the matter was questionable if he lied in obtaining it, Mr. McMillan claimed.

"If Your Lordship were to find his conduct misleading and dishonest, which we assert, you can send papers to the AG's at a later stage to determine what if any criminal activity occurred irrespective of how this case turns out,'' he said.

The comment prompted Mr. Meade to rise out of concern that a senior officer's character was being questioned unnecessarily in open court while Mr. McMillan "rambled on''.

Mr. Hall took out the writ last November in an attempt to quash the two search warrants and get back documents seized from him. Mr. McMillan will continue his submissions today.