Periods Available for Interviewing Persons Under Custody.

Periods Available for Interviewing Persons Under Custody

Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act [CAP. 20 R.E. 2022] collectively govern the lawful duration within which police officers may interview a person who is in custody regarding a suspected offence.

Under Section 50, the basic period permitted for interviewing such a person is four hours, starting from the moment the person is taken under restraint. This time is referred to as the basic period. However, not all the time a person is in custody counts toward this limit. The law excludes from this four-hour period any time spent:

• Transporting the person to a police station or relevant location,

• Enabling the person to consult or communicate with a lawyer or other required persons,

• Arranging for and awaiting necessary individuals such as legal representatives or interpreters to be present during the interview,

• Allowing the person to consult privately with their lawyer.

Section 51 addresses circumstances where the investigation cannot be completed within the initial four-hour period. It provides two legal avenues for extending the interview time:

Administrative Extension: A police officer may, for reasonable cause, unilaterally extend the interview period by up to eight additional hours, making a total of twelve hours. The person in custody must be informed of this extension.

Judicial Extension: If more time is needed, the police may apply to a magistrate—either before the initial four hours or before the eight-hour extension lapses—for a further extension. The magistrate, after hearing the suspect or their lawyer, may allow additional time if satisfied that:

• The person is lawfully detained,

• The investigation is being conducted diligently,

• Further extension is just and necessary in the circumstances.

To prevent abuse, the law prohibits frivolous or vexatious use of the administrative extension. A person affected by such misuse may petition for damages or compensation, although the burden of proving that the extension was unreasonable lies on the petitioner.