Yoldas was charged with belonging to an illegal organisation. He had been informed of his rights by the public prosecutor and by the judge who placed him on remand. He signed a form saying that he had the right to appoint a legal representative who could be present when his statement was taken, and that he could benefit from the legal assistance of a legal representative appointed by the bar association if he was not in a position to appoint one. He stated that he understood his rights but that he did not wish to be assisted a lawyer.
Held: Recalling Salduz, the Court said that, to be effective any waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established unequivocally and be surrounded by a minimum of guarantees as to its seriousness. Applying those principles to the facts of the case it noted that he had been reminded of his right to legal assistance, that he refused it and that it clearly emerged from his statements taken whilst in custody that his decision to waive his right to legal assistance was freely and voluntarily made: ‘Hence, the applicant’s waiver of this right was unequivocal and surrounded by a minimum guarantee.’
Citations:
[2010] ECHR 1 620, 27503/04
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
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: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425749