European Court of Human Rights
| Author | Claire de Than |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600207 |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
Presence
of
Police Officer during Suspect's Consultation
with
Solicitor Breaches Right to a Fair Trial
Brennan v
United
Kingdom,
The
Times
(22 October 2001)
(App. No. 39846/98, 16 October 2001)
The applicant was arrested on 21 October 1990 by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary on suspicion of terrorist offences
and
transferred to
the
special holding centre for terrorist investigations in Belfast. He was
interviewed for a total of 35
hours
over four days,
without
the presence
of a solicitor,
and
did
not
have access to a solicitor at all for over 48
hours. A police officer was present during his first meeting with his
solicitor. The police alleged
that
during
one
of the early interviews,
when
no solicitor was present,
the
applicant
had
freely confessed his
involvement in a
murder
and
in
other
terrorist activity. None of the
interviews was recorded or videoed (although
they
were displayed on a
television
monitor
in
another
room contemporaneously),
and
no inde-
pendent
person was ever present. The applicant was tried for 18 serious
offences
and
convicted
on
all counts. The only evidence connecting
him
to
the
offences charged was the disputed admissions of guilt. The trial
judge found
that
there was no evidence whatsoever of
any
ill-treatment
or oppression,
that
the decision to defer access to a solicitor was proper
in the circumstances,
and
that
the confessions
had
been
made freely
and
voluntarily. He also rejected medical opinion of
the
applicant's low IQ,
suggestibility
and
psychological vulnerability. The convictions were up-
held by
the
Court of Appeal,
and
leave to appeal to the House of Lords
was refused.
The applicant took his case to Strasbourg
and
alleged interalia that: he
had
been
denied
the
right to consult his solicitor during his initial
detention in police custody; he
had
made admissions before receiving
legal advice; he
had
not
been
permitted to have his solicitor present
during police interviews;
that
his confession
had
been
extracted by ill-
treatment
and
other
oppressive conduct;
and
he
had
not
been
allowed to
see his solicitor
without
a police officer being present. He argued
that
he
had
therefore
been
denied the right to a fair hearing
guaranteed
by
Article 6( 1) of the European Convention on
Human
Rights,
and
that
there
had
also been abreach of Article 6(3)(c).
Article 6 (1) provides:
In
the
determination of his civil rights
and
obligations or of
any
criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair
and
public hearing within
areasonable time by an
independent
and
impartial tribunal established by
law
....
Article 6(3) provides:
Everyone charged with acriminal offence has
the
following
minimum
rights:
...
152
To continue reading
Request your trial