Proceed with Caution(s)

A Critique of the Carloway Review’s Rejection of Statutory Adverse Inference Provisions in Scottish Criminal Law

Philip Bruce Glover

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Scottish criminal procedure (unlike the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) currently contains no statutory provisions permitting courts to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence during police questioning or at their subsequent trial. This was recently examined in the Carloway Review, which rejected the introduction of statutory adverse inference provisions on two principal grounds, both of which are analysed in depth and contested in this article. This article contends that the Review Team's reasoning was problematic, insofar as it ran contrary to the opinions of many Consultation respondents and employed analysis and final decision-making based on selective quotation from leading academic analysis on the subject. It is suggested that Scotland can and should enact adverse inference provisions using an amended system of cautions that are compliant with the European Convention on Human rights ('ECHR'). Carefully constructed cautions, in conjunction with the new statutory disclosure and legal assistance regimes now in place in Scotland, would ensure that an accused person's vulnerability would not be unduly compromised.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-22
Number of pages22
JournalAberdeen Student Law Review
Volume4
Issue number1
Early online date6 Sep 2013
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

accused
criminal law
legal assistance
criminal procedure
ECHR
Ireland
quotation
republic
vulnerability
police
regime
decision making
human being

Cite this

Proceed with Caution(s) : A Critique of the Carloway Review’s Rejection of Statutory Adverse Inference Provisions in Scottish Criminal Law. / Glover, Philip Bruce.

In: Aberdeen Student Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 09.2013, p. 1-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d3e6a6fc0587444cb2536a6d96c6cf09,
title = "Proceed with Caution(s): A Critique of the Carloway Review’s Rejection of Statutory Adverse Inference Provisions in Scottish Criminal Law",
abstract = "Scottish criminal procedure (unlike the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) currently contains no statutory provisions permitting courts to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence during police questioning or at their subsequent trial. This was recently examined in the Carloway Review, which rejected the introduction of statutory adverse inference provisions on two principal grounds, both of which are analysed in depth and contested in this article. This article contends that the Review Team's reasoning was problematic, insofar as it ran contrary to the opinions of many Consultation respondents and employed analysis and final decision-making based on selective quotation from leading academic analysis on the subject. It is suggested that Scotland can and should enact adverse inference provisions using an amended system of cautions that are compliant with the European Convention on Human rights ('ECHR'). Carefully constructed cautions, in conjunction with the new statutory disclosure and legal assistance regimes now in place in Scotland, would ensure that an accused person's vulnerability would not be unduly compromised.",
author = "Glover, {Philip Bruce}",
note = "* The author is a 2012 LLB Honours Graduate of the University of Aberdeen, and a PhD candidate researching the utility of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. I am deeply indebted to the support of Professor Peter Duff at the University, both in guiding my research and critically reviewing this article and the dissertation it is edited from.",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "1--22",
journal = "Aberdeen Student Law Review",
issn = "2045-7340",
publisher = "University of Aberdeen",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Proceed with Caution(s)

T2 - A Critique of the Carloway Review’s Rejection of Statutory Adverse Inference Provisions in Scottish Criminal Law

AU - Glover, Philip Bruce

N1 - * The author is a 2012 LLB Honours Graduate of the University of Aberdeen, and a PhD candidate researching the utility of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. I am deeply indebted to the support of Professor Peter Duff at the University, both in guiding my research and critically reviewing this article and the dissertation it is edited from.

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - Scottish criminal procedure (unlike the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) currently contains no statutory provisions permitting courts to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence during police questioning or at their subsequent trial. This was recently examined in the Carloway Review, which rejected the introduction of statutory adverse inference provisions on two principal grounds, both of which are analysed in depth and contested in this article. This article contends that the Review Team's reasoning was problematic, insofar as it ran contrary to the opinions of many Consultation respondents and employed analysis and final decision-making based on selective quotation from leading academic analysis on the subject. It is suggested that Scotland can and should enact adverse inference provisions using an amended system of cautions that are compliant with the European Convention on Human rights ('ECHR'). Carefully constructed cautions, in conjunction with the new statutory disclosure and legal assistance regimes now in place in Scotland, would ensure that an accused person's vulnerability would not be unduly compromised.

AB - Scottish criminal procedure (unlike the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) currently contains no statutory provisions permitting courts to draw adverse inferences from an accused's silence during police questioning or at their subsequent trial. This was recently examined in the Carloway Review, which rejected the introduction of statutory adverse inference provisions on two principal grounds, both of which are analysed in depth and contested in this article. This article contends that the Review Team's reasoning was problematic, insofar as it ran contrary to the opinions of many Consultation respondents and employed analysis and final decision-making based on selective quotation from leading academic analysis on the subject. It is suggested that Scotland can and should enact adverse inference provisions using an amended system of cautions that are compliant with the European Convention on Human rights ('ECHR'). Carefully constructed cautions, in conjunction with the new statutory disclosure and legal assistance regimes now in place in Scotland, would ensure that an accused person's vulnerability would not be unduly compromised.

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 1

EP - 22

JO - Aberdeen Student Law Review

JF - Aberdeen Student Law Review

SN - 2045-7340

IS - 1

ER -