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  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.
ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE
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.
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.
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).
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.