<p>The Supreme Court's decision in <italic>Cadder v HM Advocate</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-1"><sup>1</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-1"><label>1</label><p><span class="vid_spn">[2010] UKSC 43</span>, 2010 SLT 1125.</p></fn> is one of the most important, and almost certainly the most controversial, decision handed down “from London” since criminal appeals beyond the High Court in Edinburgh became possible as a result of the provisions of the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/scotland-act-1998-808137621">Scotland Act 1998</a>.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-2"><sup>2</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-2"><label>2</label><p>That is, in respect of “devolution issues”. Such cases were initially heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and are now, following the coming into force of the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/constitutional-reform-act-2005-808170665">Constitutional Reform Act 2005</a>, within the jurisdiction of the newly created Supreme Court.</p></fn> Overruling a decision reached by seven judges of the High Court of Justiciary<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-3"><sup>3</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-3"><label>3</label><p><italic>HM Advocate v McLean</italic> <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/cadder-v-hm-advocate-801904457">[2009] HCJAC 97</a>, <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/cadder-v-hm-advocate-801904457">2010 SLT 73</a>.</p></fn> – including both the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk – the Supreme Court held that the absence of access to legal advice prior to a police interview could not be regarded as compatible with <span class="vid_spn">article 6</span> of the <a href="https://international.vlex.com/vid/convenio-europeo-libertades-fundamentales-67895138">European Convention on Human Rights</a>. In reaching that decision, the court responded to a line of European cases stemming from <italic>Salduz v Turkey</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-4"><sup>4</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-4"><label>4</label><p>(2008) 49 EHRR 421.</p></fn> which have had far-reaching effects for a number of jurisdictions beyond Scotland.</p>
<p>The short papers which follow evaluate the decision in <italic>Cadder</italic> and place it in context. Lord McCluskey provides a critical response to <italic>Cadder</italic>, contending that the Supreme Court's decision is “flawed, mistaken and misconceived”. Fiona Leverick takes the view that it is difficult to see how the Supreme Court could have reached a different decision, but argues that it may lead to “a criminal justice system in which suspects are less well protected following <italic>Cadder</italic> than they were before it”.</p>
<p>...</p>
