“Sons of Cadder” – Supreme Court rulings on legal advice during police interviews

24 November 2011 by

Jude and others (Respondents) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotand) [2011] UKSC 55 – read judgment;  McGowan (Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh) (Appellant) v B (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 54 – read judgment

In these two cases the Supreme Court has considered whether  the failure to take up on  legal representation during police interview amounted to a waiver of the right of access to legal advice for the purposes of determining whether the trial had been fair.

Both cases involved detention of individuals which had taken place prior to the decision of this Court in Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 (see our post)  and they did not have access to legal advice either before or during their police interviews. In the course of their interviews, they each made statements which were later relied on by the Crown at their trials.

The following report on the two cases combined is based on the (separate) Supreme Court summaries. There were other issues relating to the constitutional basis for the referral of human rights points from the Scottish courts to the Supreme Court,  limitation and the running of time under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Human Rights Act 1998 which for the sake of brevity are not touched on in this report which concerns itself with the fair trial questions only –  for full summaries read the SC press reports on  Jude and others and McGowan .

 Jude and others v HM Advocate: the facts

The respondents were each detained as suspects for questioning at a police station under sections 14 and 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. They had not had legal representation during the course of the police interviews. One of the respondents, Birnie, had made a further, unsolicited, statement after the interview. He declined to consult a solicitor first or to have a solicitor present while making the statement. In the statement he made various admissions. The Crown’s case was that his statement was admissible because he had waived his right to legal representation.

The respondents were convicted and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment. They appealed, and their appeals were still current when the judgment in Cadder was delivered on 26 October 2010. They argued, on the basis of Cadder, that the leading of evidence of the statements they made during their police interviews was a breach of their rights under Articles 6(3)(c) and 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that, in terms of section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, the Lord Advocate had no power to lead that evidence. For Birnie, it was also submitted that the reliance by the Crown upon his admissions in these circumstances deprived him of a fair trial, to which he was entitled under Article 6(1) and at common law.

On the question whether the respondents had waived their right to legal assistance,  the important point in these appeals was that raised in the case of Birnie. Unlike the other two respondents, Birnie made an unsolicited statement following his police interview, having declined the opportunity to have access to a lawyer prior to and while making it. The outstanding matters before the Court were therefore whether Birnie waived his right of access to a lawyer when he made his unsolicited statement following his police interview, and whether the reliance by the Crown upon the appellant’s admissions in these circumstances deprived him of his right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention.

Judgment in Jude and others v HM Advocate 

The Court accepted the Lord Advocate’s position that  the appeals on the issue as to  waiver in regard to the police interviews of Jude and Hodgson should be dismissed. By a majority of 4-1, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the question whether it was incompatible with Birnie’s right to a fair trial for the Crown to lead and rely on the evidence of the statement which he made following his police interview.

There is no absolute rule that the accused must have been given legal advice on the question whether or not he should exercise his right of access to a lawyer before he can be held to have waived it: see McGowan (below). It was not suggested in the course of argument that an absolute rule requiring reasons for the accused’s decision to waive his right to legal assistance is to be found in the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. The only question for this Court is whether the absence of such an inquiry amounted in itself to a breach of a Convention right.

It is not for the Supreme Court to say how the law and practice respecting crimes should be developed by the common law in Scotland. The fact that the waiver was made without legal advice and without reasons being requested may be taken into account in the assessment as to whether Birnie understood the right that was being waived. But Strasbourg does not require the Court to hold that it would necessarily be incompatible with Article 6 to rely on statements made to police just because it was not ascertained why the suspect did not want to speak to a lawyer. The Strasbourg court has been careful, in general, to leave the national authorities to devise a more Convention-compliant system without itself imposing specific requirements on the State. The Supreme Court should be no less careful in the way that it deals with Scottish criminal law and procedure [29].

There is room for argument as to whether Birnie’s statement was truly voluntary and in any event whether, taking all the circumstances into account, it was fair to admit this evidence. The question of overall fairness for the purposes of Article 6(1) must be examined in the light of all the facts and circumstances, and is therefore a matter for determination by the High Court of Justiciary [33].

For Lord Kerr, it was an indispensable prerequisite that there must be some means of ascertaining the reason that the right to legal assistance has been waived [53]. On the available evidence, his view was that it had not been established that there was an effective waiver by Birnie of his right to legal assistance [57].

McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B (Respondent): the facts

The respondent, ‘B’, whose case has not yet gone to trial, has been charged on summary complaint with housebreaking with intent to steal and having in his possession a controlled drug contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Before the commencement of a police interview, he was offered legal assistance but declined the offer. His waiver of the right to legal assistance took place without his having received advice on the point from a solicitor In advance of the trial, B’s solicitor lodged a Devolution Minute stating that B’s right to a fair trial under Article 6(3)(c) would be breached if the Crown were to lead evidence of his police interview since, it was claimed, access to a solicitor should be automatic when someone has been detained in police custody.

The judgment in McGowan

Neither Strasbourg jurisprudence nor the case law of the US Supreme Court supported the proposition that the right of access to legal advice during police questioning could only be waived if the accused had received advice from a lawyer as to whether or not he should do so. Where the accused, having been informed of his rights, stated that he did not want to exercise them, his express waiver of those rights would normally be held to be effective. The minimum guarantees were that he had been told of his right, that he understood what the right was and that it was being waived and that the waiver was made freely and voluntarily.

In some cases access to a lawyer might well be a necessary prerequisite of a valid waiver in some cases. The court had to be alive to the possibility that some defendants were of low intelligent or were under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that they might not fully understand words of the caution, or the advice that they had the right to a private consultation with a solicitor before and during questioning. [47] Such vulnerable people might need to be given “more than standard formulae” if their right to a fair trial was not to be compromised.

Whilst emphasising that there was no intention to suggest that Article 6 required that these measures should be adopted in every case, the Court made two suggestions.

First, if, on being informed or reminded of the right of access to legal advice, the detainee declined to speak to a solicitor in person, the officer in question should point out that the right included the right to speak to a solicitor on the telephone; if the detainee continued to waive the right, the officer should ask him why, and any reasons given should be recorded on the custody or interview record. [49] Second, it would be advisable to inform those of limited means that a lawyer could be appointed to represent them, [51]

In Lord Kerr’s partially dissenting opinion, “close scrutiny” of the claim that the right to legal assistance had been waived should always be required, and the first of Lord Hope’s suggestions should be adopted in every case [115, 127].

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. s lawson says:

    Get legal advice? I contacted the Law Society to find out which solicitors in my area would consider action against other solicitors. They gave me 3 names but when I contacted them none would even talk to me once I told them i wanted to take action against another solicitor. I did this repeatedly and gave up trying to find a firm who would after a dozen attempts in addition to ones I tried from yellow pages. As for the SRA the the firm lied to them and denied I was given wrong advice and without any evidence to the contrary there was nothing they could do. The SRA also inferred a solicitor would never lie of course and I must be mistaken. I’m afraid the legal profession just protects its own.

  2. John Scott says:

    In Scotland only solicitors should be doing this work, in terms of Cadder and the emergency legislation. The recent Carloway Report confirmed that this should continue.

  3. Matei says:

    s lawson:

    An accredited police station representative a person who is accredited to give advice to suspects at the police station. They are regulated the SRA (the same body that regulates Solicitors), and are required to know police procedure (PACE), criminal law, criminal procedure, ethics, etc, to a sufficient degree to be able to advise you on the best course of action when faced with police questioning over an alleged offence.

    The individual who advised you hasn’t breached any codes of practice in identifying himself by his business card as a police accredited representative working for so and so solicitors. It may have been mere oversight on the part of the police officer to tell you ‘here is your solicitor’, but your rep is by no means allowed to identify himself as a solicitor.

    Solicitors do use these reps to be the client’s first contact with the firm at the police station. If he has given you incorrect legal advice then he has breached his code of conduct and you would be entitled to take action against him, and this is the case irrespective of whether he is a Solicitor or police station accredited rep.

    For the purpose of police station advice, rep or solicitor makes no difference, the bar is set at the same level in terms of the negotiation skills, ethics and legal knowledge that they are supposed to hold when advising you. If you’ve been badly advised then seek legal advice on the matter asap, but the solicitor/police rep matter is not the issue.

  4. s lawson says:

    This seems to leave a grey re the role of an ‘accredited police station representative’ who is not a solicitor. In my case I was arrested and asked if I wanted a solicitor and when I said yes the person who turned up was introduced to me by the Police as ‘your solicitor’. My ‘solicitor’ showed me a business card which said Fxxx Gxxxxx Solicitors and his name was imprinted below with the moniker ‘accredited police station representative’ underneath it. Why would I a lay person think he was anything other than a solicitor? In everything he said he led me to believe he was a solicitor.Then 6 months later after I was charged I discovered that he hadn’t been a solicitor but only an accredited police station representative who had no knowledge of the law in the area concerned and had misled me into incriminating myself in the police interviews, the only evidence against me.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: