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 in which articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) were to be applied during the preliminary investigation depended on the special features of the proceedings and on the circumstances of the case.
Judge De Meyer (dissenting) said that the court had failed to recognise the rules governing the right to legal advice during custodial interrogation which the Supreme Court has summarised in its Miranda judgment and which he said belonged to the very essence of fair trial.
Judges:
Ryssdal, President, De Meyer J
Citations:
[1993] ECHR 56, 13972/88, (1994) 17 EHRR 441
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention of Human Rights 6(1) 6(3)(c)
Citing:
Cited – Miranda v Arizona 10-Oct-1966
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure . .
Cited by:
Cited – Zaichenko v Russia ECHR 18-Feb-2010
(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 . .
Cited – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(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 . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(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 . .
Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165297
