Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

he/she does not do so, he/she risks being found in contempt of court. That isdifferent from an interview of a suspect at a police station, where the suspectcan answer some questions and not others, as he/she pleases without risk ofsanction.Thomson Committee2.0.8 In any event, over the next quarter century there was a significant retreat fromthe general, and many argued laudable, principles enunciated in Chalmers 17 .This was undoubtedly because the courts did not regard them as achieving thecorrect balance between the interests of the public and those of the suspect.Thus, in Miln v Cullen 18 Lord Wheatley, in reaffirming fairness as the onlytest, stressed that 19 :“While the law of Scotland has always very properly regarded fairnessto an accused person as being an integral part of the administration ofjustice fairness is not a unilateral consideration. Fairness to the publicis also a legitimate consideration, and in so far as police officers in theexercise of their duties are prosecuting and protecting the publicinterest, it is the function of the Court to seek to provide a properbalance to secure that the rights of individuals are properly preserved,while not hamstringing the police in their investigations of crime witha series of academic vetoes which ignore the realities and practicalitiesof the situation and discount completely the public interest”.17 the low ebb of its influence can be seen in Hartley v HM Advocate 1979 SLT 26, which can becompared with Rigg v HM Advocate 1946 JC 1; see also Gordon’s “disembodied ghost” in “theAdmissibility of Answers to Police Questions in Scotland” in Glazebrook (ed): Reshaping the CriminalLaw at 33218 1967 JC 2119 at 2928