ECtHR, XX and Others v. the United Kingdom, Nos. 50541/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, 2016
- 2016
- United Kingdom
Topics
Violent extremismLegal bases
European Convention on Human RightsCourts
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)Laws
Right to a fair trialFacts
On 21 July 2005 four bombs detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene and a police investigation immediately commenced. The first three applicants were arrested on suspicion of having detonated three of the bombs. The fourth applicant was initially interviewed as a witness in respect of the attacks but it subsequently became apparent that he had assisted one of the bombers after the failed attack and, after he had made a written statement, he was also arrested. All four applicants were later convicted of criminal offences. The case concerned the temporary delay in providing the applicants with access to a lawyer, in respect of the first three applicants, following their arrests, and, as regards the fourth applicant, after the police had begun to suspect him of involvement in a criminal offence but prior to his arrest; and the admission at their subsequent trials of statements made in the absence of lawyers.
Legal grounds
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the ECHR
Findings
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) in respect of the three first applicants and that there had been a breach of those provisions in respect of the fourth applicant. In respect of the three first applicants the Court was convinced that, at the time of their initial police questioning, there had been an urgent need to avert serious diverse consequences for the life and physical integrity of the public, namely further suicide attacks. There had therefore been compelling reasons for the temporary restrictions on their right to legal advice. The Court was also satisfied that the proceedings as a whole in respect of each of the first three applicant had been fair. The position with regard to the fourth applicant, who also complained about the delay in access to a lawyer, was different. He was initially interviewed as a witness, and therefore without legal advice. However, it emerged during questioning that he had assisted a fourth bomber following the failed attack. At that point, according to the applicable code of practice, he should have been cautioned and offered legal advice. However, this was not done. After he had made a written statement, he was arrested, charged with, and subsequently convicted of, assisting the fourth bomber and failing to disclose information after the attacks. In his case, the Court was not convinced that there had been compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and for failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution him when he had started to incriminate himself. The consequence was that he had been misled as to his procedural rights. Further, the police decision could not subsequently be reviewed as it had not been recorded and no evidence had been heard as to the reasons behind it. As there were no compelling reasons, it fell to the UK Government to show that the proceedings were nonetheless fair. In the Court’s view they were unable to do this, and it accordingly concluded that the overall fairness of the fourth applicant’s trial had been prejudiced by the decision not to caution him and to restrict his access to legal advice.