Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government
The long term implication of this, which was highlighted in Cadder, is thatthere is a need to develop a system of criminal justice based on the protectionof human rights; in particular those contained in Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of theConvention. This has been the key consideration informing the Review.3.0.3 The Review’s task has been to identify the fundamental principles that mustapply in a modern, fair and effective system for the investigation andprosecution of crime and to assess the extent to which existing law andpractice needs to be developed, adjusted or even overhauled in order tocomply with those principles. It is clear that many of the formulations ofthose principles must now be derived mainly, and sometimes perhapsexclusively, from the Convention. In addressing this dimension, the Reviewhas been conscious that there has to be developed a system which isConvention compliant overall and not just one containing an accumulation ofindividually compliant but unrelated constituent parts.3.0.4 The Convention itself is a concise and relatively clear text. As drafted, it is areadily understandable code of human rights, each of which is manifest fromthe express terms of the individual articles and sub-articles. But the rightshave been interpreted by the European Court in a manner which is appropriateto the particular circumstances of individual cases. There has developed anextensive jurisprudence of implied, subsidiary or supplementary rights which,although not explicitly recognised in the Convention, are taken by the Court toform part of the protections that it provides. In the context of the Article 6right to a fair trial, for example, there exists an implied right to silence, the50
privilege against self-incrimination and, post Salduz, the right of access to alawyer prior to police questioning in detention. Adding to the complexity,other rights may be express, such as the right under Article 5 to be brought“promptly” before a court, but those have been interpreted by the Court in ahighly flexible fashion.Article 5 – The Right to Liberty3.0.5 Article 5 states:“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No oneshall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and inaccordance with a procedure prescribed by law:…the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose ofbringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonablesuspicion of having committed an offence…;Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a languagewhich he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any chargeagainst him.Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions ofparagraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judgeor other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shallbe entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial”.3.0.6 The unnecessary or disproportionate deprivation of a person’s liberty is aserious infringement of his/her human rights. The circumstances in which anyarrest or detention can be tolerated as legitimate must be tightly constrained.It is a fact, however, that any criminal justice system must be able to deprive aperson of his/her liberty as part of the lawful protection of the rights of others51
- Page 1: TheCarloway ReviewReport andRecomme
- Page 4 and 5: highly disruptive to the system gen
- Page 9: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS1995 Act The C
- Page 13 and 14: 1.0 INTRODUCTIONBackground1.0.1 In
- Page 15 and 16: a solicitor” prior to, and at any
- Page 17 and 18: ole of the Group was to provide the
- Page 19 and 20: of the points made at each of these
- Page 21 and 22: Topics outwith the scope of the Rev
- Page 23: Convention, describes the overall v
- Page 26 and 27: Justice-Clerk (Inglis) stated to a
- Page 28 and 29: arrest and liberty. There was nothi
- Page 30 and 31: he/she does not do so, he/she risks
- Page 32 and 33: e a matter of fact to be determined
- Page 34 and 35: question the suspect until he/she b
- Page 36 and 37: Committee’s report when read as a
- Page 38 and 39: ultimate arbiter of constitutionali
- Page 40 and 41: was cautioned, but not told that he
- Page 42 and 43: at the whole circumstances of the c
- Page 44 and 45: Cadder2.0.35 Mr Cadder was aged 16
- Page 46 and 47: 2.0.39 Compelling reasons would hav
- Page 48 and 49: 2.0.44 These guidelines were supers
- Page 50 and 51: first required to have been “subs
- Page 54 and 55: and of society as a whole. The purp
- Page 56 and 57: giving rise to the reasonable suspi
- Page 58 and 59: 3.0.15 The right of silence and the
- Page 60 and 61: complacency must be avoided and the
- Page 62 and 63: unlawful for a public authority to
- Page 64 and 65: 4.0.3 In short, the Review has gras
- Page 66 and 67: The System4.0.7 The recommendations
- Page 68 and 69: window during which these investiga
- Page 70 and 71: operates in a context where the hum
- Page 73 and 74: 5.0 CUSTODY CHAPTERS OVERVIEW5.0.1
- Page 75 and 76: next step, as quickly as possible.
- Page 77 and 78: 5.1 ARREST AND DETENTIONIntroductio
- Page 79 and 80: 5.1.6 The Review has considered whe
- Page 81 and 82: Arrest without warrant5.1.9 A polic
- Page 83 and 84: 5.1.12 It was because of this lack
- Page 85 and 86: 5.1.15 Reasonable suspicion permits
- Page 87 and 88: arrest, without warrant, any person
- Page 89 and 90: interview. The Court stated that th
- Page 91 and 92: of the suspect and subsequent crimi
- Page 93 and 94: appropriate ground for both arrest
- Page 95 and 96: justified by the evidence gathered
- Page 97: (d) may destroy evidence, interfere
- Page 100 and 101: Current law5.2.3 In terms of sectio
The long term implication of this, which was highlighted in Cadder, is thatthere is a need to develop a system of criminal justice based on the protectionof human rights; in particular those contained in Articles 3, 5, 6 <strong>and</strong> 8 of theConvention. This has been the key consideration informing the Review.3.0.3 The Review’s task has been to identify the fundamental principles that mustapply in a modern, fair <strong>and</strong> effective system for the investigation <strong>and</strong>prosecution of crime <strong>and</strong> to assess the extent to which existing law <strong>and</strong>practice needs to be developed, adjusted or even overhauled in order tocomply with those principles. It is clear that many of the formulations ofthose principles must now be derived mainly, <strong>and</strong> sometimes perhapsexclusively, from the Convention. In addressing this dimension, the Reviewhas been conscious that there has to be developed a system which isConvention compliant overall <strong>and</strong> not just one containing an accumulation ofindividually compliant but unrelated constituent parts.3.0.4 The Convention itself is a concise <strong>and</strong> relatively clear text. As drafted, it is areadily underst<strong>and</strong>able code of human rights, each of which is manifest fromthe express terms of the individual articles <strong>and</strong> sub-articles. But the rightshave been interpreted by the European Court in a manner which is appropriateto the particular circumstances of individual cases. There has developed anextensive jurisprudence of implied, subsidiary or supplementary rights which,although not explicitly recognised in the Convention, are taken by the Court toform part of the protections that it provides. In the context of the Article 6right to a fair trial, for example, there exists an implied right to silence, the50