Thanks, P Smith. I will need your help on the Gerry Adams arrest post, too!

Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, which I believe is in force in Northern Ireland in the amended version linked, provides that aiders, abettors, counsellors and procurers of indictable offences shall be dealt with as principal offenders.

In England and Wales there are limits on the number of days an accused can be detained in custody between first appearance before a court and the start of a trial, but no actual limit on when the trial must start, although the Secretary of State does have power to make regulations imposing such an overall limit (Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s. 22; Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 as amended).

In Northern Ireland there is provision equivalent to section 22 of the 1985 Act conferring power to make regulations imposing such time limits, but so far as I can discover that provision is not yet in force (a further order by the Secretary of State is necessary for that to occur) and so no regulations have been made.

In Scotland the position appears to be governed by sections 65 and 147 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

ECHR Article 6 in part provides that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. As ever, what constitutes a “reasonable time” depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

Thanks, Chris. You are right that Bell is charged with aiding and abetting the kidnapping and murder, and not with actually committing the murder or doing the kidnapping. I don’t know the law on this in Northern Ireland; in the U.S., though, there is no difference in the attribution of guilt to the principal or to an aider or abettor. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”

The case may not be tried “anytime soon,” but I assume that in the UK, as here, once charges are brought, there are substantive and procedural rules limiting the amount of time the government has to bring the case to trial, unless the defendant waives them. Perhaps P. Smith will comment on these points.

Has the PSNI ever said that its target is Gerry Adams?

Meanwhile, Gerry Adams says he has had his lawyers contact the PSNI with an offer to submit to questioning. There is no sign that the PSNI has bothered to question the person who is supposed to be the target of their investigation.

Thanks, P Smith. I think what I’ve written is basically compatible with what you’ve written, and I am grateful for the additional detail about interviews under caution.

The absence of a caution in an interview conducted by a journalist on the promise of confidentiality is both not surprising and irrelevant.

The requirement to caution a person (whether under arrest or not) before questioning them about their suspected involvement in an offence is currently to be found in paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code of Practice C (available here; see articles 65 and 66 of the 1989 Order). The PACE Codes do not apply to interviews conducted by journalists, because journalists are neither police officers nor “persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders” (1989 Order, article 66(8)).

The relevant law would be that in force at the time of the interview, with which I am not familiar, but it seems unlikely that there was ever a requirement for anyone other than a police officer or similar official to caution a person before questioning them about their involvement in an offence.

If Z is not shown to be Bell then the tape is almost certainly inadmissible.