Information Note on the Court’s case-law 229
May 2019
Doyle v. Ireland - 51979/17
Judgment 23.5.2019 [Section V]
Article 6
Article 6-3-c
Defence through legal assistance
Police interviews held without physical presence of lawyer, counterbalanced by important safeguards at trial: no violation
Facts—In 2009, following his arrest in connection with the killing of a man, the applicant was granted access to a lawyer prior to being interviewed by the police. After the first interview he was able to request access to his lawyer at any time, meet with his solicitor in person and continue to consult him by telephone. However, all of the interviews were conducted without the solicitor being physically present in the interview room.
During one of the interviews, the applicant admitted killing the man and gave a number of details about the crime. At his request that interview was interrupted to enable him to consult with a solicitor. He also consulted with his solicitor in person before that interview.
In 2012 the jury found him guilty of the murder.
Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): The right of an accused to have access to a lawyer extended to having that lawyer physically present during police interviews. The fact that the applicant’s lawyer could not be present during his police interviews amounted to a restriction of his right of access to his lawyer. However, as he had had access to his solicitor before the crucial first police interview and at any time thereafter, and given that all the interviews had been video recorded, the extent of that restriction was relative.
Since the impugned restriction had resulted from police practice at the time and was therefore of a general nature, it had not been justified by compelling reasons, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. Very strict scrutiny was therefore required to assess the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
The following reasons led the Court to conclude that the overall fairness had not been irretrievably prejudiced:
(i) unlike in the case of Beuze v. Belgium [GC], the applicant had been provided with legal assistance from the outset;
(ii) being an adult and a native English speaker, the applicant had not been particularly vulnerable; the interviews had not been unusual or excessively long; according to the trial judge, the applicant had been physically and mentally strong throughout the interviews;
(iii) the applicant had been able to challenge the admissibility of evidence and to oppose its use; after holding a ten day special procedure (“voir dire”) on the admissibility of evidence obtained from the police interviews, the trial judge had delivered a lengthy, reasoned decision in that respect;
(iv) the applicant’s allegations of the use of psychological intimidation by the police had been extensively considered by the domestic courts; in their view, even if the actions of the police could have been considered a threat or inducement, they could not have had any link with the applicant’s admission, because of the passage of time and the fact that the applicant had had an opportunity to consult with his solicitor both in person and by telephone immediately prior to making the admission;
(v) while the applicant’s conviction had been based on a voluntary confession of his guilt, it had been supported by significant independent evidence;
(vi) the trial judge had instructed the jury to examine neutrally the question of whether the applicant had been induced to confess to the crime, warning them about the risk of convicting a person on confession evidence alone without corroboration and giving a detailed explanation of what inducement or corroboration meant in the circumstances. The jury had been informed about the contested status of the interviews, and the judge’s reasons as to their admissibility;
(vii) sound public-interest considerations had justified prosecuting the applicant, who had been charged with murder following the killing of an innocent victim as a result of mistaken identity in the context of a feud between criminal gangs, which had required the respondent State to take appropriate measures;
(viii) there had been other important procedural safeguards. Firstly, all police interviews had been recorded on video and made available to the judges and the jury. Secondly, while not physically present, the applicant’s solicitor had had and used the possibility to interrupt the interview to further consult with his client. His role had been, in fact, central in that the police and the applicant had been actually communicating through him, rather than directly with each other.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
(See Beuze v. Belgium [GC], 71409/10, 9 November 2018, Information Note 223, and the references cited in the legal summary)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy