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.”