Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

5.1.12 It was because of this lack of power that the Committee recommended 20 thatthere should be a separate investigative procedure whereby a person suspectedof an offence could be “detained” on reasonable suspicion, but only for a verylimited period and for specific narrowly defined purposes, includingquestioning. Detention was conceived by the Committee as a compromise inwhich there was no right of access to a lawyer prior to or during questioning,although it was not prohibited, and the suspect had to be either arrested andcharged or released within six hours. This was an extremely short period inEuropean, if not global, terms and was far less than that subsequentlyauthorised in England and Wales under PACE or in Ireland under the CriminalJustice Act 1984. It may be that the requirements of modern policing mighthave meant that such a short detention period would have struggled to surviveas a maximum in any event. But, perhaps not surprisingly given thealternative, there was little pressure from defence solicitors to change it. Thiswas not because “nobody thought that there was anything wrong with thisprocedure” 21 . There have been debates amongst lawyers about this subject foryears, not least at the time of the Thomson Committee 22 . Rather, manydefence lawyers considered that the system worked reasonably well for allconcerned, including suspects, distinguishing, in the context of an adversarialsystem, between what was acceptable as part of an investigation and whatcould be done when, and if, a prosecution had commenced. In this context,the short maximum period was seen as a particularly important consideration.Cadder, by placing a duty on the police to facilitate a suspect’s access to alawyer within the period of detention, effectively put an end to this particular20 para 3.2421 Cadder, Lord Hope at para 422 paras 5.08 and 7.1681