3. 是次司法覆核申請提出了一個 #狹窄的法律問題。那就是警方未有向申請人出示有關的搜令會否實際地妨礙她在法庭提出訴訟的權利，而不是關於警方是否應申請該搜令，或該裁判官是否應批出該搜令，又或是該搜令是否應被法庭撤銷。
5. 直至現在，申請人都 #未有利用上述的機制行事。而除了為追討損害賠償外，亦有潛在的法律渠道讓申請人質疑有關搜令是否有效，但申請人至今仍未有利用這些渠道。
6. 答辯人未有按申請人要求向她出示該搜令，亦 #不表示答辯人侵犯了她在法庭提出訴訟的權利。
Judiciary’s summary of G Lam J’s #judgement
1. The police have pursuant to a search warrant issued by a magistrate obtained from a hospital certain medical records relating to the applicant.
2. The applicant seeks a declaration that the police’s refusal to produce the warrant to her is in breach of Article 35 of the Basic Law and Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. This application for judicial review raises the narrow question of whether the fact that the search warrant has not been produced to the applicant has effectively obstructed her right of access to the courts. It is not about whether the police should have applied for the warrant, or whether the magistrate should have granted the warrant, or whether the warrant should be set aside.
4. The applicant does not have a free‑standing right to the production of the warrant on demand either under statute or common law. There are existing mechanisms in the law for the applicant to seek, on proper grounds, production of the warrant in the context of actual or intended proceedings to impugn it.
5. The applicant has so far not utilised these mechanisms. There are legal avenues potentially open to the applicant for impugning the validity of the warrant and not only for recovering damages, which the applicant has so far not utilised.
6. The fact that the respondent has not produced the warrant to the applicant on demand does not mean her right of access to the courts has been infringed.
7. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.