Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
ignored. There are about 100 detentions per day. In a given year, therefore,there may be in the region of 350 suspects, whose questioning is notcompleted within a twelve hour period.5.2.22 Further data from ACPOS, which covers November 2010 to August 2011inclusive, suggests that there are many factors which lead to the extension ofdetention beyond twelve hours. Most commonly the requests for more timehave stemmed from the complexity of the investigation, the existence ofmultiple suspects, a proliferation of allegations and/or witnesses or the need toarrange searches or samples. Another significant factor is the fitness of thesuspect to be interviewed. He/she may need to recover from the influence ofalcohol and/or drugs, require medical attention or have other welfare needs.Another major category is the need to secure the attendance of a third party;either an appropriate adult or responsible person for respectively a vulnerableor child suspect, a solicitor where requested or an interpreter if there arelanguage barriers. However, the Review notes that, of the ninety-threeextensions which occurred during this period, just twelve were triggeredwholly or in part by a delay in securing solicitor access.5.2.23 The Review has no reason to suppose that the statistics do not paint anaccurate picture of what is reasonably required by way of time for the initialinvestigation of a crime up to the point at which a decision on whether tocharge or report for charge can be made. It is confident that there willcontinue to be a significant proportion of cases for which six hours will be toorestrictive a period to allow proper and effective investigation. It is also clear110
that the need to extend detention for questioning beyond twelve hours shouldoccur only in exceptional circumstances.5.2.24 There is some confusion on whether the police ought to charge a detainedsuspect as soon as there is sufficient evidence to do so. The Review’sunderstanding of the law is that there is no such requirement and that the pointat which the police elect to charge a suspect is a matter for their discretion,subject to the general requirement of fairness. The Review has not beenconvinced that there is any reason to change this approach. It does, however,seem sensible to remove the confusion by explicit statutory provisionclarifying how and when the police must charge a suspect.5.2.25 The current law and practice has the potential to allow a person to be held, incertain circumstances, for a period of four, and perhaps five, days in policecustody prior to appearance in court. Such lengthy periods may not be typical.Many suspects do appear in court on the day following their arrest. However,it remains the case, as demonstrated by the figures in the snapshot of custodycases described above, that a significant proportion of suspects are held forperiods which are at least at the outer limits of what may be regarded asacceptable even under the Convention. More important than that, suspects arebeing held for periods that are longer than ought to be regarded as acceptablein Scottish human rights terms. It is worth exploring the causes for theprolonged custody periods and the available remedies for what the Reviewconsiders to be a serious problem.111
- Page 62 and 63: unlawful for a public authority to
- Page 64 and 65: 4.0.3 In short, the Review has gras
- Page 66 and 67: The System4.0.7 The recommendations
- Page 68 and 69: window during which these investiga
- Page 70 and 71: operates in a context where the hum
- Page 73 and 74: 5.0 CUSTODY CHAPTERS OVERVIEW5.0.1
- Page 75 and 76: next step, as quickly as possible.
- Page 77 and 78: 5.1 ARREST AND DETENTIONIntroductio
- Page 79 and 80: 5.1.6 The Review has considered whe
- Page 81 and 82: Arrest without warrant5.1.9 A polic
- Page 83 and 84: 5.1.12 It was because of this lack
- Page 85 and 86: 5.1.15 Reasonable suspicion permits
- Page 87 and 88: arrest, without warrant, any person
- Page 89 and 90: interview. The Court stated that th
- Page 91 and 92: of the suspect and subsequent crimi
- Page 93 and 94: appropriate ground for both arrest
- Page 95 and 96: justified by the evidence gathered
- Page 97: (d) may destroy evidence, interfere
- Page 100 and 101: Current law5.2.3 In terms of sectio
- Page 102 and 103: 5.2.5 Particularly in view of the t
- Page 104 and 105: individuals were being detained wit
- Page 106 and 107: significant crimes, reflected that
- Page 108 and 109: ConsiderationThe period before char
- Page 110 and 111: the investigation and prosecution o
- Page 114 and 115: 5.2.26 Scotland is a small jurisdic
- Page 116 and 117: 5.2.29 Continuing with the custody
- Page 118 and 119: 5.2.32 The sheriffs principal and s
- Page 120 and 121: jurisdictions where judicial or oth
- Page 122 and 123: where they are uncertain of what th
- Page 124 and 125: 122
- Page 126 and 127: The grounds for arrest and initial
- Page 128 and 129: procurator fiscal consider that the
- Page 130 and 131: the standard bail conditions and, i
- Page 132 and 133: prudent, therefore, to constrain an
- Page 134 and 135: to challenge any conditions before
- Page 136 and 137: ⎯ the exercise of the powers to l
- Page 138 and 139: the nature and scope of police ques
- Page 140 and 141: suspect the right of access to an a
- Page 142 and 143: involving the suspect having inform
- Page 144 and 145: 6.1.3 It was essential that the Rev
- Page 146 and 147: 6.1.7 In Ireland 7 , a suspect in c
- Page 148 and 149: lawyer at that stage, although the
- Page 150 and 151: detained suspect must have prompt a
- Page 152 and 153: interview. That is the general posi
- Page 154 and 155: doubt remain dependent upon the sta
- Page 156 and 157: of non-qualified persons posed a pr
- Page 158 and 159: eing interviewed, or otherwise hind
- Page 160 and 161: proportionate. If a conflict does o
ignored. There are about 100 detentions per day. In a given year, therefore,there may be in the region of 350 suspects, whose questioning is notcompleted within a twelve hour period.5.2.22 Further data from ACPOS, which covers November 2010 to August 2011inclusive, suggests that there are many factors which lead to the extension ofdetention beyond twelve hours. Most commonly the requests for more timehave stemmed from the complexity of the investigation, the existence ofmultiple suspects, a proliferation of allegations <strong>and</strong>/or witnesses or the need toarrange searches or samples. Another significant factor is the fitness of thesuspect to be interviewed. He/she may need to recover from the influence ofalcohol <strong>and</strong>/or drugs, require medical attention or have other welfare needs.Another major category is the need to secure the attendance of a third party;either an appropriate adult or responsible person for respectively a vulnerableor child suspect, a solicitor where requested or an interpreter if there arelanguage barriers. However, the Review notes that, of the ninety-threeextensions which occurred during this period, just twelve were triggeredwholly or in part by a delay in securing solicitor access.5.2.23 The Review has no reason to suppose that the statistics do not paint anaccurate picture of what is reasonably required by way of time for the initialinvestigation of a crime up to the point at which a decision on whether tocharge or report for charge can be made. It is confident that there willcontinue to be a significant proportion of cases for which six hours will be toorestrictive a period to allow proper <strong>and</strong> effective investigation. It is also clear110
Change language