The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers. In each case the prosecutor now appealed after their convictions had been overturned in the light of the decision in Cadder. Held: (Lord Kerr dissenting) The prosecutor’s appeals failed. … Continue reading Jude v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 23 Nov 2011
The claimant alleged that his treatment in the police station had been wrongful. His solicitor, representing two clients, had refused to attend the interview with the claimant until he had seen the second client. There was a scene and the solicitor was excluded. The claimant said that this had unlawfully imposed a condition on his … Continue reading McDonagh, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary: Admn 19 Dec 2013
The court was asked as to the lack of legal assistance while in police custody and the use at the trial of incriminating statements that had been made at that stage. Held: The court repeated the proposition that was first stated in Salduz, that the rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced … Continue reading Sharkunov and Mezentsev v Russia: ECHR 10 Jun 2010
(Final Execution) The Court having found the respondent to have been in breach of the claimants’ human rights in having denied them access to legal advice on arrest for a period of up to 48 hours, now concluded that necessary measures had been taken and the case was closed. Citations: [2010] ECHR 1890, 18731/91 Links: … Continue reading Murray v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Sep 2010
The claimant challenged his conviction after he had not been given access to a lawyer whilst detained and after, during the appeal process, prosecution material was submitted to the court which was not shown to him. Nevertheless he had remained silent at interview. Held: There had been a breach of article 6(3)(c) in conjunction with … Continue reading Dayanan v Turkey: ECHR 13 Oct 2009
The applicant was questioned by the police as a witness in connection with the attempt to detonate four bombs at separate points in the London public transport system two weeks after the bombings that took place on 7 July 2005. He had been approached by two police officers who took him to a police station. … Continue reading Abdurahman v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Sep 2010
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what point the duty to allow access to a solicitor arose, and what use might … Continue reading Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc: SC 6 Oct 2011
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of workers stealing diesel from their service vehicles. Two cans of diesel … Continue reading Zaichenko v Russia: ECHR 18 Feb 2010
(Fifth Section) The applicant complained, in particular, that his continued pre-trial detention had been unjustified and that he had not been legally represented in the early stages of the criminal proceedings. Held: The court summarised the general principles that are to be found in Salduz. It stated that, as a rule, access to a lawyer … Continue reading Borotyuk v Ukraine: ECHR 16 Dec 2010
(First Section) The applicant was interrogated while he was under arrest in police custody. He asked for the assistance of a lawyer during his interrogation, but this was disregarded by the investigator who proceeded to question him. It was argued that his decision then to confess his guilt to the investigator constituted an implied waiver … Continue reading Pishchalnikov v Russia: ECHR 24 Sep 2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate. Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in conjunction with art 6(1), because … Continue reading Salduz v Turkey: ECHR 27 Nov 2008
The applicant complained that he had been arrested and detained by anti-terrorist police. At his trial evidence of his statement was challenged on the basis that it had been extracted from him under duress and that he had not had access to a lawyer. Citations: 36391/02, [2007] ECHR 332 Links: Bailii Statutes: European Convention on … Continue reading Salduz v Turkey: ECHR 26 Apr 2007
The claimant had been was arrested on his way home from a protest rally. He was made aware of his rights and expressly declined a lawyer. Held: As it was his own choice not to have a lawyer, the authorities could not be held responsible for the fact that he was not represented in the … Continue reading Galstyan v Armenia: ECHR 15 Nov 2007
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the statement so that he could get out to see her. The police … Continue reading Regina v Mushtaq: HL 21 Apr 2005
The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his silence in the period before access to his lawyer, … Continue reading Brennan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Oct 2001
The applicant had been denied legal advice for 48 hours after he had been taken into custody. Held: There had been a violation of article 6(1) read with article 6(3)(c). However, it was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is not an … Continue reading Murray v The United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 1996
The applicant had been questioned several times without access to a lawyer while he was in police custody. Held: Overall there had been no breach of article 6(1). The right set out in article 6(3)(c) is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in article 6(1). The way … Continue reading Imbrioscia v Switzerland: ECHR 24 Nov 1993
Is it is an abuse of process or unfair or in breach of Articles 6(3)(c), 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the prosecution to rely on the evidence of an interpreter, who had acted as an interpreter at the police station after the arrest of a defendant (when the defendant … Continue reading Bozkurt v Thames Magistrates’ Court: Admn 14 May 2001
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer. Held: The section must be read … Continue reading Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 26 Oct 2010
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial. Held: It was not incompatible with Article 6(1) and 6(3)(c) for the Lord Advocate to lead and rely upon … Continue reading McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B: SC 23 Nov 2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution. Held: The admission of the evidence may not infringe the defendant’s human rights. However, there is no absolute rule that the fruits … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Advocate v P: SC 6 Oct 2011
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act. Held: The decision was set aside for breaching the rule against impugning an action of Parliament. The minister had made a statement as to the … Continue reading Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another: Admn 11 Apr 2008
A suspect’s position will have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him is being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled: ‘The manner in which article 6(1) and (3)(c) is to be applied during the preliminary . .
(Grand Chamber) The claimant said that police treatment during his interview had amounted to torture.
Held: The Salduz principles were not restricted to the failure to provide access to a lawyer during interview. There is no clear consensus . .
