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 absolute right.
As to the US judgment in Miranda, Walsh J, dissenting in part, pointed out that the US Supreme Court had affirmed that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment: ‘guarantees to the individual the ‘right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own free will’ whether during custodial interrogation or in court.’
Judges:
R Ryssdal, President
Citations:
Times 09-Feb-1996, 18731/91, [1996] ECHR 3, (1996) 23 EHRR 313, [1996] 22 EHRR 29
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 691) 693)(c)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
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 – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
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 . .
See Also – Murray v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Sep-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 . .
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 – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165406