In determining that it was not in the interests of justice for an offender’s case to be referred to the High Court of Justiciary on the basis of Cadder (Peter) v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had not erred in taking into account the fact that the offender had not disputed the truth of an admission made in his police interview, had not challenged the fairness of the interview or its use at trial, and had made use of the interview at trial.

[2017] UKSC 20

Where a detainee had been fully and repeatedly advised of her ongoing right to legal advice at an interview under caution, the fact that a police officer had not used the words “Duty Solicitors Scheme” when advising her of that right did not lead to unfairness justifying the exclusion of her confession evidence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.76 or s.78.

Related Links:

[2014] EWHC 283 (Admin)

Where a detainee arrested on suspicion of fraud had been denied access to his chosen solicitor on the ground that the firm for which that solicitor had previously worked was suspected of being involved in the same fraudulent conspiracy, that situation fell within the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 art.59(8) because it would have compromised the criminal investigation if a solicitor who had been involved were admitted to act on behalf of another alleged conspirator, and there were reasonable grounds for believing that that was the case.

[2014] NICA 13

The court granted a declaration that a suspect at a police station had been unlawfully denied right of access to a solicitor of his choosing when interviewed, in breach of the PACE Codes of Practice code 6.8 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(3)(c).

[2013] EWHC 4690 (Admin)

A detainee under the Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7 had the right to consult a solicitor before being interviewed, so his questioning after his request for a solicitor and prior to the solicitor’s arrival was unlawful. However, his detention was not unlawful, as he was lawfully detained to secure the fulfilment of his obligation to answer questions put to him pursuant to the 2000 Act and he was entitled to nominal damages only as there was no evidence that he had suffered any loss or adverse consequences.

[2013] EWHC 3397 (Admin)

A valid waiver of the right to legal representation at a police interview had to be voluntary, informed and unequivocal. In assessing the validity of a waiver, the court had to consider the extent of the suspect’s knowledge and the extent to which his decision had caused him disadvantage.

[2012] EWCA Crim 1380

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights did not support the proposition that, as a rule, the right of access to legal advice during police questioning could only be waived if the accused had received advice from a lawyer as to whether or not he should do so.

[2011] UKSC 54

The time limit in the Scotland Act 1998 s.100(3B) did not apply to proceedings brought by way of appeal under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, since the latter Act had its own system of time limits for the bringing of appeals, which s.100(3B) had not been intended to override. The court also considered whether a refusal of legal representation while making an unsolicited admission following a police interview amounted to a waiver of the right of access to legal advice for the purposes of determining whether the trial had been fair.

[2011] UKSC 55

When considering a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 to access to a lawyer prior to police questioning, the Supreme Court declined to extend the principle established by Salduz v Turkey (36391/02) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 19 to questioning which took place before a person was detained at a police station.

[2011] UKSC 43

There was no absolute rule that reliance on the fruits of questioning of an accused when he did not have access to a lawyer had always to be held to be a violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1) and art.6(3)(c).

[2011] UKSC 44

It had not been reasonably practicable for a suspected drink driver to consult her solicitor prior to undergoing the Camic procedure where only four minutes had been available between her request and the start of the procedure.

[2004] EWHC 508 (Admin)