The legal issues that can be mentioned in the case of Desdemona and Vince include the aspects of the whole procedure of arrest as well as the process of questioning. Assuming that the charges on which Desdemona was known, which is led to believe by the facts that Vince told the police, it can be stated that the initial procedure of defendant attendance to answer the charges requires summons. The cases in which a warrant of arrest, according to sec. 28 of Magistrates’ Court Act 1989, should be issued include, in addition to the second instance of offense, the assurance that there is a probability that the defendant will not answer a summons, the defendant’s escape, or probability to escape, or a good cause. In that regard, it can be seen that in the present case this not the issue, where, first of all, it was the first instance of such charges, and secondly, there were no reasons to believe that the defendant will likely escape or there were an act or a good cause for an arrest warrant. If the procedure of taking Desdemona to the police station was considered as an arrest with a warrant, assuming that the Constable and Senior Constable did have reasons to believe that summons was not enough, then a copy of the arrest warrant issued by a registrar or a magistrate should have been used, according to sect. 57 of Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. Desdemona was obliged to go to with the police only if she was under arrest, and considering the phrase “she had to accompany them immediately”, which was mentioned in the case, it can be assumed that it was an arrest. Additionally, if an argument arose on whether Desdemona willingly or not entered into the police car, it should be stated that in such a case she can be considered to be in custody. Being held in custody implies several requirements that should be fulfilled. Such requirements, according to sect. 464A of Crimes Act 1958 include the following:   * Before questioning, the officials should have told Desdemona that she does not have to say anything, as anything said might be used against her in the court.   * Inform Desdemona of the circumstances of the offense she is charged with   * Implementing any of the three options, which are unconditional release, release on bail, bringing before a bail justice, or Magistrates Court in a reasonable time.   * According to Crimes Act 1958 – sect. 464C, Desdemona should have been informed and given the right to communicate to relatives, friends, or legal practitioners. There were no reasonable grounds that could be fitted into the category that allows ignoring such condition, i.e. the communication would result in an escape, the questioning is urgent. The last factor contradicts the seven hours time period, during which Desdemona was held in the interview room, and thus confirms that the questioning was not urgent. It should be mentioned that although the reasonable time was not clearly defined, it can be stated that any of the measures used to assess such terms are surpassed by the time Desdemona spent in the interview room, seven hours. The questioning procedure itself contains many actions that violate the SECT 464H (Recording of confessions and admissions) of Crimes Act 1958. The cond