Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

lx.iriss.org.uk
from lx.iriss.org.uk More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!