Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

“to provide principled solutions that are universally applicable in allthe contracting states. It aims to achieve a harmonious application ofstandards of protection throughout the Council of Europe area, not onedictated by national choices and preferences. There is no room in itsjurisprudence for, as it were, one rule for the countries in EasternEurope such as Turkey on the one hand and those on its Westernfringes such as Scotland on the other”.2.0.42 The final phrase is perhaps an unfortunate description of Scotland’s place inEurope. Be that as it may, the statement does not seem to fit with theEuropean Court’s previous statements concerning compliance with theConvention 56 . There is also the oddity that the effect of the United KingdomSupreme Court’s decision was that Cadder could not be the subject ofdeliberation before the European Court itself 57 . But the law in terms ofCadder is that, “as a rule”, access to a lawyer must be provided as from the“first interrogation” of a suspect by the police 58 .Lord Advocate’s Guidelines and the 2010 Act2.0.43 In anticipation of the decision in Cadder, the Lord Advocate issued “InterimGuidelines on Access to a Solicitor” in June 2010. These set out instructionsto the police, and in particular Senior Investigating Officers, requiring them tofacilitate access to a solicitor in: “all cases where individuals are interviewedas suspects in police stations whether: during detention under Section 14;during voluntary attendance for interview or under common law betweenarrest and charge”.56 for a fuller critique of the decision see Lord McCluskey : “Supreme Error” (2011) Edinburgh LawReview 276; cf Leverick: The Supreme Court Strikes Back (2011) Edinburgh Law Review 28757 the Lord Advocate is not a victim who can apply to that Court58 Cadder, Lord Hope at para 4145