Campbell v HMA is an example of when an accused can make incriminating statements during questioning which can later be used against him. In Tonge v HMA the accused, Tonge, and his co accused, Gray, were being detained by the police on suspicion of rape.
Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 (26 October 2010) is a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the way in which police in Scotland detained suspects was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and was therefore unlawful in terms of the Scotland Act 1998 Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 Facts Cadder was detained by the police on suspicion of serious assault and cautioned in line with Sections 14 and 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He was told that he was entitled to have a solicitor informed of his detention but he did not […] Cadder v HM Advocate 4 March 2011 11/20 Graham Ross On 26 October 2010, the UK Supreme Court issued its judgement in the case of Cadder v HM Advocate. It held that certain elements of Scots law governing police powers to detain and question suspects failed to respect the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Justiciary in HM Advocate v McLean [2009] HCJAC 97, 2010 SLT 73, which was heard by a bench of seven judges. The link between that case and the appeal is that the minuter in that case and the appellant, Peter Cadder, in this were both detained under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended (“the 1995 Act”).
Mar 18, 2019 · Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 25, Times 28-Apr-05, House of Lords, [2005] 1 WLR 1513) The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police.
How many cases were abandoned or suspended as a result of By way of background Cadder ruled that a custodial interview without having access to legal advice was a breach of the fair trial guarantee in article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. As a result all live cases where the Crown relied solely on a Cadder affected interview for corroboration could not …
Oct 26, 2010 · Cited – Jude v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 55, Bailii Summary, SC, 2012 SCCR 88, 2012 SLT 75, 2011 GWD 38-779, 2012 SCL 130, UKSC 2011/0150, SC Summary) The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers.
No stateable Cadder ground – In its decision in Cadder v HMA [2010] UKSC 43, issued in October 2010, the Supreme Court held that to detain and interview an accused without offering legal advice and then to rely upon admissions made during interview was a breach of the accused’s human rights. GRAHAM GORDON FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF … On 29 October 2010, three days after the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cadder was issued (Cadder v HMA 2011 UKSC 13), the petitioner wrote to the respondents confirming that he wished them to consider Cadder "taking cognisance of the cumulative effect which may have affected my right to a fair trial as a whole, including the way I was