The European Court of Human Rights has released a judgment wherein the Chamber found that the temporary delay in providing access to a lawyer during police questioning of the London bombers was justified in the circumstances and that it did not ultimately prejudice their trials. The Chamber held that there was no violation of article 6§1, the right to a fair trial, when read in conjunction with article 6§3(c), the right to legal assistance.
On 21 July 2005, five bombs were planted by four men in London, which were detonated but failed to explode. The first three applicants in this case were convicted of planting the explosive devices, and the fourth applicant is a convicted accomplice of the fourth bomber. All four applicants had made safety statements to the police before speaking with their lawyers which were subsequently admitted as evidence at trial. The applicants claimed that submission of this evidence was an unlawful breach of their right to legal assistance and that its submission as evidence at trial was a breach of their right to a fair trial under article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court looked at the context in which the arrests were made, that the bombings of the 21 July were the second of such attacks in two weeks. There had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety that provided compelling reasons which justified the temporary delay in allowing the applicants’ access to lawyers.
Additionally, the Court found that there was no undue prejudice at trial as a result of the statements. In making its decision, the Court considered the counter-balancing safeguards contained in the national legislative framework which were applied in each applicant’s case, such as the trial judge’s warning offered to jury members and the fact that they were given the opportunity to challenge their statements. The Court considered the weight afforded to the statements, as compared to the strength of other prosecution evidence.
Based on these findings, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there was no violation of article 6§1 when read in conjunction with article 6§3(c) of the Convention. Judge Kalaydjieva delivered a dissenting judgment.
Click here to read the full decision of Ibrahim and others v UK [2014] ECHR 375
Click here to read an ECHR factsheet on access to a lawyer.