Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

for example, referred to there not being the “remotest chance” that theEuropean Court would consider it compatible with Article 6 for “suspects tobe routinely questioned without having the right to consult a lawyer first”,without qualifying that by reference to any need for the suspect to have beenin detention. Not surprisingly, the uncertainty so created spawned a largenumber of objections to evidence of incriminatory remarks made in the manydifferent circumstances which can arise before a suspect is either arrested ormade the subject to section 14 detention. Several appeals followed hearings inthe Sheriff and High Courts, it being made clear by some of the sheriffs andjudges that they had difficulty in determining how to apply the Cadder dicta.This process culminated in the Lord Advocate referring four cases direct to theUnited Kingdom Supreme Court in order to achieve rapid clarity on the pointof when exactly the right of access to a lawyer arises.Ambrose2.0.46 In Ambrose v Harris 60 and its sister cases 61 , the United Kingdom SupremeCourt 62 did provide some, albeit still limited, clarity on what is an issue ofconsiderable importance in the practical operation of police investigations andpublic prosecutions in court. The Court held that, following especiallyZaichenko v Russia 63 , the right of access to a lawyer does not arise in allsituations where a suspect is to be questioned by the police. In order, for thegeneral Article 6 right to a fair trial to have arisen, the situation of the suspect60 [2011] UKSC 4361 HM Advocate v G and HM Advocate v M; and HM Advocate v P [2011] UKSC 4462 by a 4-1 majority63 18 February 2010 (no 39660/02)47