Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

contingent on the existence of evidence, as distinct from suspicion, far less ona corroborated case.Section 14 Detention5.1.11 Arrest was perceived as a status which required to be accompanied by acharge, at which time questioning had to stop. It could hardly, therefore, beused as an investigative tool. As already noted, the only alternative for thepolice was to “persuade” a suspect to accompany them to a police station to“help with their enquiries”. The Thomson Committee was concerned thatsuch a suspect did not have the rights of a person arrested and charged 17 .These rights included, and still include, intimation to, and later consultationwith, a solicitor prior to appearance in court on the next lawful court day 18 .The Committee recognised, as was indeed the case, that the absence of apower to take a suspect into custody as part of an investigation presented thepolice with considerable problems. It reported that 19 :“The policeman’s real difficulty arises in investigations where hewants to interview a suspect or prevent him from interfering withevidence such as stolen property. At present the police are powerlessto act without the consent of the very person who is likely to havemost interest in refusing to give that consent. Clearly the policeshould not be entitled to arrest anyone they want to interview but itseems plainly wrong, for example, that a suspected violent criminalwith significant evidence on his clothing has to be left at large whilethe police seek other evidence of his guilt sufficient to entitle them tocharge”.17 para 3.1018 1995 Act s 13519 para 3.1380