Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

under the care of a “disinterested turnkey” 6 . Such a prisoner required to “bekept free from further interrogation by the investigating officers” 7 .Chalmers2.0.4 The judicial high point approving this form of protective system was the FullBench 8 decision of Chalmers 9 in 1954. At least until the introduction of theprocess of detention in 1980, this was the leading case on the interrogation ofsuspects, even if subsequent decisions had significantly eroded its practicaleffect long before then. There had at the time of Chalmers been a number ofprevious cases suggesting that a person might fall into one of threecategories 10 . At one end of the spectrum, there was the person against whomthere was no case meriting detention or charge and who was being questionedmerely as a witness. The second, at the other end, was an arrested person whowas in custody awaiting appearance in court, having been cautioned andcharged. He/she could not be questioned. In a third, intermediate, group wassomeone who had been “detained on suspicion” of committing a crime. In thecase of the latter category, fairness was thought to be the test for theadmissibility of any incriminatory answers to questions 11 . However,Chalmers made it clear that there was no intermediate condition between6 p 897 p 908 five judges9 Chalmers v HM Advocate 1954 JC 6610 Bell v HM Advocate 1945 JC 61, LJG (Cooper) at 66; Macdonald: Criminal Law (5th ed) (1948) pp312-31311 HM Advocate v Aitken 1926 JC 83, Lord Anderson (the trial judge) at 8625