References: (1966) 384 US 436, [1966] USSC 143, (1966) 86 SCt 1602, (1966) 16 LEd2d 694
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Warren CJ
(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 the privilege against self-incrimination. These safeguards require that, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform the accused person of the right to silence and to assure continuous opportunity to exercise it, he must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement that he does make may be used as evidence against him, that he has the right to consult with an attorney and that, if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. ‘Custodial interrogation’ for the purposes of this rule means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Imbrioscia -v- Switzerland ECHR (Bailii, [1993] ECHR 56, 13972/88, ECHR, (1994) 17 EHRR 441, Bailii)
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 . . - Cited – Galstyan -v- Armenia ECHR (26986/03, Bailii, [2007] ECHR 936, (2007) 50 EHRR 618)
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 . . - Cited – Ambrose -v- Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 43, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2011/0101, 2011 SLT 1005, [2011] 1 WLR 2435)
(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 – Murray -v- The United Kingdom ECHR (Times 09-Feb-96, 18731/91, [1996] ECHR 3, (1996) 23 EHRR 313, [1996] 22 EHRR 29, Bailii)
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 . . - Considered – JDB -v- North Carolina (USSC, LII, 09-11121)
(United States Supreme Court) The court considered the applicability of Miranda protection to a police interview of a minor. . . - Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) -v- B SC (Bailii Summary, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 54, SC, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0201, [2011] 1 WLR 3121, 2012 SLT 37, 2012 SCCR 109, 2012 SCL 85)
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 . .
