(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 he did not have the benefit of legal assistance while he was in police custody.
It is in the face of the heaviest penalties that respect for the right to a fair trial is to be ensured to the highest possible degree by democratic societies. Neither the legal assistance provided subsequently nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during the time spent in police custody.
The Grand Chamber concluded: ‘the court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently ‘practical and effective’ . . article 6(1) requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under article 6 . . The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.’
Judges:
Nicolas Bratza, President
Citations:
[2008] ECHR 1542, 36391/02, (2008) 49 EHRR 421, (2009) 49 EHRR 19, 26 BHRC 223
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 26-Apr-2007
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. . .
Cited – Imbrioscia v Switzerland ECHR 24-Nov-1993
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 by:
Cited – Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 26-Oct-2010
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 . .
Cited – Gafgen v Germany ECHR 1-Jun-2010
(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 . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-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 . .
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 – Pishchalnikov v Russia ECHR 24-Sep-2009
(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 . .
Cited – Sharkunov and Mezentsev v Russia ECHR 10-Jun-2010
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, . .
Cited – Borotyuk v Ukraine ECHR 16-Dec-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 . .
Cited – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
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 . .
Cited – Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland) SC 22-Mar-2017
The appellant the Commission’s decision not to refer his case back to the court. They had agreed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to make such a referral. His statement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.427789