Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
procurator fiscal consider that there is insufficient information to justify acharge against a suspect but reasonable suspicion still remains, the only optionis to release the suspect unconditionally during or at the expiry of thedetention period. It may be possible to permit the re-arrest of the suspect forthe same offence 1 , but it would not seem appropriate for the police to questionhim/her further, at least without judicial sanction under the proposed newregime, if the maximum period has already expired. In any event, re-arrestitself may seem unnecessarily draconian if a suspect can be expected to attendat a police station at a particular set time.5.3.6 In England and Wales, section 37(2) of PACE provides that, if the custodyofficer does not consider that there is enough evidence to charge a suspect orthat the suspect’s detention is necessary to obtain evidence by questioninghim/her or otherwise, he/she can release him/her “either on bail or withoutbail”. The custody officer can attach conditions to that release 2 for thepurpose of ensuring that the suspect surrenders to custody at a police station,does not commit an offence, does not interfere with witnesses, does notobstruct the course of justice and makes himself/herself available to assist withcertain enquiries. There is no time limit placed on the length of the liberationand the courts in England and Wales have been reluctant to terminateliberation conditions 3 . Thus restrictions can be placed on a suspect almostindefinitely where there is insufficient evidence to charge him/her, although it1 cf in Ireland, when judicial authority would be required for this; see Criminal Justice Act 1984 s 102 PACE s 47(1A)3 R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of A [2006] EWHC 2352, see the problems in R(on theapplication of the Chief Constable Greater Manchester Police) v Salford Magistrates Court [2011]EWHC 1578 (admin)126
may be possible to challenge these under the Convention in certaincircumstances 4 .Liberation Post Charge5.3.7 Pending court appearance, the criteria used by the police to decide whether toliberate suspects charged by them are those set out in the Lord Advocate’sGuidelines to Chief Constables on Liberation by the Police 5 . These followupon the provisions in the 1995 Act 6 , which allow the police to liberatesuspects, on or without undertakings, pending court appearance on a specificday no later than twenty-eight days after liberation. The provisions do notapply to murder or rape cases and, where it is likely that the case will notproceed on a summary complaint, the police are requested to consult theprocurator fiscal. The Guidelines provide that there should be no release on anundertaking where there is a substantial risk that the suspect will fail to appearat the court diet, commit further offences, interfere with witnesses, obstruct thecourse of justice or fail to comply with the undertaking. Obviously, where it isthought that the suspect poses a danger to the public or the investigationprocess, he/she should not be released under these provisions. Where asuspect has been arrested on a non-appearance warrant, there is a presumptionthat he/she will not be liberated pending appearance, but this is rebuttablewhere exceptional circumstances exist.5.3.8 Breach of an undertaking is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty oftwelve months imprisonment. Any undertaking can include compliance with4 e.g. SF v Switzerland (1994) DR 76, at para 135 http://www.copfs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Publications/Resource/Doc/13547/0000523.pdf6 s 22(1), (1A) and (1B)127
- 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 112 and 113: ignored. There are about 100 detent
- 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 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
- Page 162 and 163: 6.1.36 In England and Wales, resear
- Page 164 and 165: context and returning to the genera
- Page 166 and 167: Waiver6.1.41 The European Court has
- Page 168 and 169: until shortly before his/her attend
- Page 170 and 171: ⎯ the right of access to a lawyer
- Page 172 and 173: and whether there is sufficient evi
- Page 174 and 175: the degree of suspicion, and to adv
- Page 176 and 177: is detained 7 . Regardless of wheth
procurator fiscal consider that there is insufficient information to justify acharge against a suspect but reasonable suspicion still remains, the only optionis to release the suspect unconditionally during or at the expiry of thedetention period. It may be possible to permit the re-arrest of the suspect forthe same offence 1 , but it would not seem appropriate for the police to questionhim/her further, at least without judicial sanction under the proposed newregime, if the maximum period has already expired. In any event, re-arrestitself may seem unnecessarily draconian if a suspect can be expected to attendat a police station at a particular set time.5.3.6 In Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, section 37(2) of PACE provides that, if the custodyofficer does not consider that there is enough evidence to charge a suspect orthat the suspect’s detention is necessary to obtain evidence by questioninghim/her or otherwise, he/she can release him/her “either on bail or withoutbail”. The custody officer can attach conditions to that release 2 for thepurpose of ensuring that the suspect surrenders to custody at a police station,does not commit an offence, does not interfere with witnesses, does notobstruct the course of justice <strong>and</strong> makes himself/herself available to assist withcertain enquiries. There is no time limit placed on the length of the liberation<strong>and</strong> the courts in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales have been reluctant to terminateliberation conditions 3 . Thus restrictions can be placed on a suspect almostindefinitely where there is insufficient evidence to charge him/her, although it1 cf in Irel<strong>and</strong>, when judicial authority would be required for this; see Criminal Justice Act 1984 s 102 PACE s 47(1A)3 R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of A [2006] EWHC 2352, see the problems in R(on theapplication of the Chief Constable Greater Manchester Police) v Salford Magistrates Court [2011]EWHC 1578 (admin)126