Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
specific statutory rules which make provision for the identification ortreatment of the vulnerable suspect at the stage of the police investigation. Itshould also be borne in mind that the suspect’s vulnerability may becomeapparent only at some point after the initial arrest and detention. Vulnerabilitymay, for example, become evident to the suspect’s lawyer during a privateconsultation. In line with the judgment in Dayanan, the lawyer will have arole in bringing this to the relevant police officer’s attention in the expectationthat an appropriate adult will be contacted. The police officer responsible forthe suspect’s detention should, in such cases, be ready to revise his/herassessment of vulnerability and make the necessary additional arrangements.6.4.13 The measures required to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable suspect willvary from case to case. Where there is a significant condition, and thus doubtover the suspect’s capacity or fitness to be questioned at all, a medical opinionmay well be required. In other instances it may be that the suspect can beinterviewed with additional support and assistance from an adult relative orclose friend or from a professional experienced in mental health. The Reviewunderstands that there may often be practical difficulties in ensuring theprompt attendance of a professional appropriate adult. Such persons willusually be in full time employment and will not always be able to stop theirnormal work in order to attend at a police station.6.4.14 It is appreciated that, with someone who does not fully understand his/herrights, there may be questions as to whether he/she is capable of understandingthe meaning of waiving a right or indeed the import of a caution. These232
problems exist in current practice and are presently dealt with, wherenecessary, by the court in deciding whether answers should be admitted interms of common law or Article 6 fairness. In light of the foregoing, it isappropriate to provide some greater statutory definition as to when a suspectshould be classified as vulnerable and what should happen thereafter.6.4.15 The Review does not consider that it is possible to set down rules on thestandard of proof which must be reached in the mind of the police officertasked with deciding the matter. It is sufficient for present purposes that thepolice officer must decide whether he/she considers that the suspect falls intothe category of vulnerable. That term ought to be defined in a far shorter andsimpler manner than that used in the vulnerable witness legislation. Theminimum requirement thereafter would be the provision of an appropriateadult to enable the suspect to understand his/her rights, if that is possible, andto take a decision on whether access to a lawyer should be waived. Of course,this all proceeds on the assumption that if, even with the assistance of anappropriate adult, the suspect still cannot fully understand the questioning orthe significance of the procedure, statements made by him/her in response toquestioning will be ruled inadmissible.RecommendationsI, therefore, recommend that:⎯ there should be a statutory definition of a “vulnerable suspect”. Thisshould be, in broad terms, a person who, in the view of the policeofficer authorising the suspect’s detention, is not able to understandfully the significance of what is said to him/her, of questions posed or233
- Page 184 and 185: the suspect’s right to silence an
- Page 186 and 187: and reliable, e.g. to clear up ambi
- Page 188 and 189: “would have such an adverse effec
- Page 190 and 191: 6.2.38 As noted above, section 78 o
- Page 192 and 193: ensure that reasonable lines of enq
- Page 194 and 195: determining fairness in certain cas
- Page 196 and 197: permission to do so. The applicatio
- Page 198 and 199: hour maximum detention period, in a
- Page 200 and 201: incrimination. It should be specifi
- Page 202 and 203: accused’s first appearance on pet
- Page 204 and 205: 202
- Page 206 and 207: Current law6.3.4 For the purposes o
- Page 208 and 209: to a Hearing or prosecuted in court
- Page 210 and 211: ight of access to the child, subjec
- Page 212 and 213: Constabulary on the conditions in w
- Page 214 and 215: he/she has a specific right to “p
- Page 216 and 217: general thrust of what is said by t
- Page 218 and 219: 6.3.21 In many jurisdictions 43 a c
- Page 220 and 221: 6.3.25 This means that any child su
- Page 222 and 223: police interviewing a child at his
- Page 224 and 225: to listen to any advice given. If h
- Page 226 and 227: 224
- Page 228 and 229: Current LawDefinition6.4.3 There is
- Page 230 and 231: legislation 6 , both of which stres
- Page 232 and 233: he/she 9 : “may not understand th
- Page 236 and 237: of his/her replies because of an ap
- Page 238 and 239: 7.0.3 Throughout the course of the
- Page 240 and 241: 7.0.8 The Review looked at the admi
- Page 242 and 243: 240
- Page 244 and 245: which does not hold when there is a
- Page 246 and 247: We have already directed that witne
- Page 248 and 249: persuade the populace of the validi
- Page 250 and 251: punishments than those exigible on
- Page 252 and 253: tenets. Indeed, even the judiciary
- Page 254 and 255: He concluded 50 :“Although two wi
- Page 256 and 257: does then, in each individual case,
- Page 258 and 259: will look at the evidence at trial
- Page 260 and 261: accused as the perpetrator of the c
- Page 262 and 263: 7.2.11 After what might be describe
- Page 264 and 265: Practical Considerations7.2.15 How
- Page 266 and 267: 7.2.18 It may seem immediately appa
- Page 268 and 269: Distress7.2.21 Similar consideratio
- Page 270 and 271: The Convention7.2.23 Article 6 of t
- Page 272 and 273: 7.2.25 The rules concerning the nee
- Page 274 and 275: finding tribunals are, with rare ex
- Page 276 and 277: cases which had been instructed for
- Page 278 and 279: the criminal justice system. Removi
- Page 280 and 281: The more difficult issue, however,
- Page 282 and 283: more persuasive than a multiplicity
problems exist in current practice <strong>and</strong> are presently dealt with, wherenecessary, by the court in deciding whether answers should be admitted interms of common law or Article 6 fairness. In light of the foregoing, it isappropriate to provide some greater statutory definition as to when a suspectshould be classified as vulnerable <strong>and</strong> what should happen thereafter.6.4.15 The Review does not consider that it is possible to set down rules on thest<strong>and</strong>ard of proof which must be reached in the mind of the police officertasked with deciding the matter. It is sufficient for present purposes that thepolice officer must decide whether he/she considers that the suspect falls intothe category of vulnerable. That term ought to be defined in a far shorter <strong>and</strong>simpler manner than that used in the vulnerable witness legislation. Theminimum requirement thereafter would be the provision of an appropriateadult to enable the suspect to underst<strong>and</strong> his/her rights, if that is possible, <strong>and</strong>to take a decision on whether access to a lawyer should be waived. Of course,this all proceeds on the assumption that if, even with the assistance of anappropriate adult, the suspect still cannot fully underst<strong>and</strong> the questioning orthe significance of the procedure, statements made by him/her in response toquestioning will be ruled inadmissible.<strong>Recommendations</strong>I, therefore, recommend that:⎯ there should be a statutory definition of a “vulnerable suspect”. Thisshould be, in broad terms, a person who, in the view of the policeofficer authorising the suspect’s detention, is not able to underst<strong>and</strong>fully the significance of what is said to him/her, of questions posed or233
Change language