CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juin 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19 June 2000 Magee v. the United Kingdom - 28135/95 Judgment 6.6.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Defence through legal assistance Denial of access to lawyer during initial stages of interrogation: violation Article 14 Discrimination Different treatment of detained suspects in different parts of the United Kingdom: no violation Facts : The applicant was arrested in Northern Ireland in connection with an attempted bombing. Access to a lawyer was delayed under the relevant legislation and the applicant was cautioned that adverse inferences could be drawn from his failure to mention facts later relied on in his defence. He was interviewed on several occasions and the following morning he complained to a doctor that he had been ill-treated. During subsequent interviews, the applicant broke his silence and gave detailed answers admitting his involvement in the bombing. The next day, he told a doctor that he had no further allegations of ill-treatment. He was later allowed to consult a lawyer. Further medical examinations disclosed no signs of injury. The applicant was tried before a judge sitting without a jury. The prosecution case was based on his confession and his application to have this excluded on the basis of the alleged ill-treatment was rejected after evidence had been taken in that respect. The applicant, although cautioned that adverse inferences could be drawn from his failure to give evidence at his trial, declined to do so. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. His appeal was unsuccessful. Law : Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c) - The trial judge was not called on to exercise his discretion to draw inferences and no inferences were drawn from the applicant’s decision not to give evidence. Thus, his silence was not an issue before the domestic courts. The administration of a caution concerning the implications of remaining silent may place an accused in a dilemma at the beginning of an interrogation and fairness requires that he have the benefit of legal assistance at that stage. However, the applicant in this case chose to break his silence and no adverse inferences were drawn from his earlier silence. The central issue is therefore the applicant’s complaint that he was prevailed upon in a coercive environment to incriminate himself without the benefit of legal advice. He was denied access to a lawyer for over 48   hours, during which he was interviewed for extended periods and kept incommunicado apart from contacts with doctors. This, together with the austerity of the conditions (as reported in particular by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture), was intended to be psychologically coercive and conducive to breaking down the applicant’s resolve to remain silent. As a matter of procedural fairness, he should therefore have been given access to a solicitor at the initial stages as a counterweight to the intimidating atmosphere. Denial of access for such a lengthy period and in a situation where defence rights were irretrievably prejudiced is incompatible with the rights of an accused under Article 6. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6: In the constituent parts of the United Kingdom there is not always a uniform approach to legislation in particular areas. Whether or not an individual can assert a right derived from legislation may accordingly depend on the geographical reach of the legislation at issue and the individual’s location at the time. In so far as there exists a difference in treatment of detained suspects in Northern Ireland and those in England and Wales, that difference is not to be explained in terms of personal characteristics but on the geographical location. This permits legislation to take account of regional differences and characteristics of an objective and reasonable nature. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41 - The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the applicant’s trial had he had access to a lawyer earlier. The finding of a violation in itself constitutes just satisfaction. The Court made an award in respect of costs.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes