Cadder vs. HMA: Devastating ruling means ECHR must be reviewed

The UK Supreme Court, led by two Scottish Judges, has delivered its verdict on Cadder vs. HMA, finding in favour of Cadder. This ruling affects cases that will have gone to trial, where the trial is still in progress and where an appeal is in process. In addition, it leaves open the possibility of closed cases also being referred back to the High Court if the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decides it is in the public interest.

Cadder vs. HMA centred around the whether a person detained by police has the right of access to a lawyer prior to being interviewed.

John Lamont MSP, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said:

"This is a devastating ruling. Although the judgment is not automatically fully retrospective, there is still a probability of a flood of appeals. Once again ECHR is looking after the interests of the criminals rather than the rights of the law-abiding majority. The whole operation of ECHR must be reviewed.

"All right minded people will be angry and disturbed that a freely given confession, by someone of sound mind, taped and witnessed, can no longer be used as evidence in a court of law.

"This judgment also has severe implications for the public purse, not just due to appeals but also future legal aid bills. There are also real fears about its impact on conviction rates.

"This mess needs to be sorted as soon as possible and Scottish Conservatives stand ready to work with the rest of Parliament to limit the damage."

Annabel Goldie raised this issue at FMQs on June 18th 2009 and June 17th 2010.

In June 2009 we asked the SNP Government what plans it had to deal with any adverse outcome arising from the Salduz decision and the inadmissibility of evidence given by an accused whilst in police custody, but without a lawyer being present.

The following summer, we again asked Alex Salmond for an assessment of the scale of the potential problem, and what contingency plans were being prepared.

Back to all posts