It has taken more than 25 years but police suspects detained in Scotland now have the same rights as those in other parts of the UK and the vast majority of western Europe. In the case of Cadder, the UK supreme court yesterday held that the refusal by police in Scotland to allow a suspect access to a solicitor before questioning was incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

As a Scottish lawyer I am proud of many aspects of our system but this anomaly was not one of them. Since 1980, Scotland's police have had the power to detain suspects for six hours, and while a solicitor could be advised of the fact of detention, the suspect had no right of access to a lawyer. This must have seemed odd to those outside Scotland, especially in England where there are detailed provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regarding a suspect's access to legal advice.

There were complaints in Scotland over the years that a suspect's privilege against self-incrimination was at risk when being questioned in a police station with no lawyer present. Many of my clients are vulnerable in some way - addiction issues, literacy problems and the like. Many would struggle to properly grasp the meaning of the police caution that they were not required to say anything.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) commented adversely on the Scottish situation after its visits to the UK in 1994 and 2003. CPT's 2005 report emphasised the importance of suspects having access to a lawyer from the very outset of their detention. "The period immediately following deprivation of liberty is when the risk of intimidation and ill-treatment is greatest," it said. In the same report, the CPT reiterated its recommendation that the right of access to a lawyer should include the right to contact and be visited by the lawyer in conditions guaranteeing the confidentiality of their discussions, and the right of the suspect to have the lawyer present during police interviews.

The police and prosecution in Scotland simply ignored these recommendations and became overly dependent on confession evidence. That will now have to change.

The catalyst for change should have been the Salduz v Turkey decision of the European court of human rights in 2008. Despite its obvious importance, Scottish authorities tried to wish it away and the police carried on as before. The appeal court in Scotland missed a final opportunity at the end of 2009 to address the problem and instead concentrated on other safeguards such as the inability to convict on an admission made in custody alone and the requirement that there be corroborated evidence. As the supreme court said in Cadder's case, these safeguards are commendable but beside the point.

One unfortunate consequence of the Cadder decision may be that some of these important features of our legal system will be eroded or removed. Elish Angiolini QC, Scotland's lord advocate, has already said: "The balance of rights for accused in Scotland will now need to be carefully considered." By this I rather suspect she means she thinks it should become easier in some other ways for the crown to obtain convictions. In a system where only the guilty are prosecuted, that might be less of a problem. I trust that the government's review of Scottish criminal law and practice under Lord Carloway will see us retain our strong safeguards against miscarriages of justice and not legislate merely to increase the number of convictions.

John Scott is a solicitor advocate and is the vice-president (crime) of the Society of Solicitor Advocates