A CONTROVERSIAL legal ruling which left police unable to interview suspects without a solicitor could now be extended further after a sheriff's decision in a benefit fraud case.
Sheriff Sean Murphy told Glasgow Sheriff Court last week that interviews by outside agencies should be bound by the same restrictions.
His decision means interviews by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), HM Revenue and Customs and other organisations may also be subject to the principles of the Cadder ruling.
Under new regulations following the Cadder case, suspects in police custody must be offered the chance to see a solicitor before questioning or sign a form declaring they refused legal advice.
Sheriff Murphy told the court: “I can see no reason to distinguish between the police and any other agency which is questioning a person suspected of committing some type of crime.
“Their inquiries must be seen as sharing some of the features of a police investigation and the right against self-incrimination must be as important in relation to any interview conducted by such an agency, where the contents of the interview are likely to be used in evidence, as it would be in the context of police questioning. The principle must be applied equally to all inquiries which are likely to lead to criminal proceedings.”
The debate involved the case of Parveen Akram, who has been charged with defrauding DWP by claiming too much housing benefit.
Ms Akram was interviewed by DWP staff without a solicitor – a move her defence solicitor Gerry Sweeney said was unfair.
Mr Sweeney asked the sheriff to rule evidence from that interview was inadmissible but he refused as Ms Akram was offered legal advice and refused it.
Mr Sweeney said this decision could have a huge impact as suspects in this situation often struggle to gain access and funding for a solicitor.
The lawyer said: “There’s no effective scheme in place to deal with interviews of this kind and many people in this situation just agree to the interview as they think it will be easier.
“I think this is going to have significant repercussions, either in the way legal aid is made available to such persons or the occurrence of such interviews.”
Mr Sweeney plans to appeal against the decision that his client’s evidence is admissible. He believes the Crown may appeal against the part of the ruling relating to the Cadder case.
The Crown Office said no decision had been taken yet. A spokesman said: “We note the sheriff considered the evidence was admissible in this case.
“The Crown has not at this time considered if it would appeal the sheriff’s decision on the applicability of the Cadder principles.”
The Scottish Legal Aid Board added assistance is available to those questioned by outside agencies but will be considered on an individual basis.
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said the ruling would have an impact but added interviewees are advised of their right to legal advice prior to any questioning.
An HM Revenue and Customs spokesman added: “If the courts direct us to offer a solicitor then obviously we’ll adhere to that.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The Scottish Government worked closely with partners to respond quickly and effectively to the original Cadder decision, including the passing of emergency legislation and the commissioning of Lord Carloway’s review.
“This is an area of law that continues to develop with a number of related cases pending. The Scottish Government and other justice organisations are keeping it under review and will respond to these and to Lord Carloway’s recommendations.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article