Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

questioning a suspect prior to his/her rights, including that of access to alawyer, being triggered by charge. This reasoning has been overtaken byCadder. Against that background there is no longer any merit in retainingsection 14 detention as distinct from arrest. It is recommended that a newapproach is adopted in which the only general power to take a suspect intocustody is the power of arrest. Arguments that the distinction would remainuseful as a means of placing a limit on police questioning of a suspect incustody can be accommodated in other ways, as is explored later.5.1.30 The Review considers that there would be benefit in stipulating exactly what“arrest” is in statute and defining the subsequent holding of an arrested personin custody prior to any potential court appearance. In line with the conceptsexpressed in Article 5 of the Convention, arrest should be defined in terms ofthe initial deprivation of liberty, i.e. the restraining of the person and takinghim/her to, or keeping him/her at, a police station, broadly as is currentlystated in section 14 for detention. The subsequent period in which the arrestedperson continues to be deprived of his/her liberty prior to his/her appearance incourt needs to be described. It is hard to avoid calling this period anythingother than “detention”, but it should be understood to be different from section14 detention.5.1.31 In the new system, there should be clarity on the grounds for arrest andsubsequent detention and these should be compliant with the requirements ofArticle 5. As detailed earlier, there is a relatively consistent approachthroughout Convention countries which identifies reasonable suspicion as the90