Search
document

Document text Analytics

LAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15703/89 • ECHR ID: 001-871

Document date: February 15, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

LAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15703/89 • ECHR ID: 001-871

Document date: February 15, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 15703/89

by Paul LAW

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

15 February 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 28 July 1989

by Paul LAW against the United Kingdom and registered on 27 October

1989 under file No. 15703/89;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1963 and

presently detained at HM Prison Stafford, England.

He complains to the Commission of the interview he gave to the

police on 8 February 1989. He had been arrested the day before on

suspicion of armed robbery and wounding with intent. He was first

interviewed on the morning of 8 February with his solicitor present to

give him advice. There was a break for lunch, after which the

interview continued in the absence of the solicitor with the

applicant's consent. It was tape-recorded. As it went on, however,

the applicant requested his solicitor's presence. The applicant was

told that this was not possible and the police refused to discontinue

the questioning. The applicant states that the rest of the interview

was made under duress.

Section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

entitles the accused to consult a solicitor privately at any time. If

the police refuse to permit consultation a record has to be made of

the refusal and the reasons for it. The Act strictly limits the

grounds on which such a refusal can be made, e.g. when there are

reasonable grounds for believing that legal consultations would lead

to an interference with or harm to evidence connected with a serious

arrestable offence. Sections 76 and 78 of that Act provide

respectively for the exclusion from a trial of any confessions by an

accused person obtained by "oppression", and for the exclusion of any

evidence which has been obtained in such a way that it would have an

adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. "Oppression"

within the meaning of Section 76 includes torture, inhuman or

degrading treatment and the use or threat of violence.

Section 66 of that Act requires the Secretary of State to

issue a Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning

of Persons by Police Officers. Paragraph 6 (5) of the Code requires

that if a person is permitted to consult a solicitor who is available

at the time the interview begins or when it is in progress, he must be

allowed to have his solicitor present whilst he is interviewed.

However, while a failure to observe the Code may result in

disciplinary proceedings against the police officers concerned,

evidence obtained as a result of this failure is not necessarily

inadmissible at the trial.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he was denied legal

representation and the right to remain silent, in breach of Article 6

paragraph 3 (c) of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that he was denied legal

representation and the right to remain silent, in breach of Article 6

paragraph 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention which guarantees, inter

alia, the right to defend a criminal charge through legal assistance

of one's own choosing.

The Commission refers to its previous case-law that Article 6

paragraph 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention gives the accused a

general right to assistance and support by a lawyer throughout the

whole of the criminal proceedings (Can v. Austria, Comm. Report

12.7.84, para. 54). The Commission notes that the applicant was

initially assisted by his lawyer for half a day. He then agreed to

continue the police questioning for a further half day without the

lawyer, although changing his mind later. However, he did not

thereafter refuse to answer any further questions from the police.

Moreover, the applicant has not alleged that he was denied subsequent

consultations with his lawyer. Finally the Commission notes that the

admissibility of any evidence or confession which has been obtained by

oppression during that afternoon of police questioning can be

challenged by the applicant at his trial. Furthermore, he can contend

that the evidence should not be admitted on the ground that it would

have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. Were the

applicant to make such a challenge, his allegations could be verified

by the tape-recording of the interview. In the light of these factual

circumstances the Commission concludes, even assuming that the

applicant may be said to have complied with the requirements of

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, that the case does not

disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c)

(Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention. It follows that the application is

manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant