Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

e a matter of fact to be determined, in solemn cases, by the jury and not, asadvocated in Chalmers, after a “trial within a trial”. That was an interestingidea since, at least theoretically, it let members of the public, and not judges,set the parameters of legitimate police activity in the interrogation of suspects.There may be something to be said for this approach in terms of democracy, asindeed there is for the idea of balancing individual and societal rights 23 . Butthe problem which required to be faced ultimately was whether this balancingexercise was compliant with the Convention which contains rights, some ofwhich may be regarded as absolute, or at least not susceptible to modificationon the ground of public expediency in an individual case.2.0.12 By 1980, the situation had certainly become unsatisfactory on one level, as theThomson Committee recognised. There was, in terms of Chalmers, arrest orliberty. Yet what was happening in practice was that suspects were continuingto be effectively held in custody without charge and described somewhateuphemistically as “helping the police with their enquiries”. This was analternative description of the intermediate stage which was expressly notrecognised by the law as set out in Chalmers. It was this problem that theCommittee set out to remedy.2.0.13 At the core of the recommendations of the Thomson Committee report wasthat 24 :23 an approach favoured by Gordon (supra) p 34224 at paras 2.03 and 2.0430