2 thoughts on ““It’s the greatest injustice I have heard of in Ireland.” – mail from one of the sympathetic people from Ireland

  1. Hi

    I posted this on the Polish server but the translator makes it un readable. So in a nutshell. Good news for Martha. ECHR is starting a new Trial revision. Usually cases can take decades to get to a hearing, but now there is a remedial option between applicant and the domestic state.

    So this could be resolved within the next few months.

    The ECHR has announced in a press release (18 December 2018) that it is conducting a trial revision of those mechanisms relating to the initial communication of an application to a respondent state.

    “Governments are given 16 weeks {following the date of the communication} to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of a case. Within the first eight weeks of that period they are also required to inform the Court whether they are prepared to conclude a friendly settlement.”

    A “friendly settlement” is the ECHR equivalent of an out-of-court settlement in a US civil case; the ECHR must be satisfied that the conditions of a friendly settlement meet human rights requirements for that settlement to be acceptable.

    The revised mechanism will be introduced on 1 January 2019 for a one-year test period. The ECHR explains in its announcement that its intent is to encourage friendly settlements by introducing a “non-contentious” 12-week phase immediately after the communication to the respondent state:

  2. Numbers wrote:
    Here’s some commentary from European lawyers on the above Directive (end note numbering omitted for clarity):

    3.2 Timely Access to a Lawyer during Police Custody

    According to the Directive, suspects or accused persons must be provided with access to a lawyer without undue delay after the moment of deprivation of liberty. Thus, the Directive makes it clear that the right applies from the outset of police custody, and not only if and when a detained suspect is interrogated by the police.

    This resolves any uncertainties of interpretation of the existing ECtHR {European Court of Human Rights} case law on the matter. The Directive furthermore provides that Member States must ensure timely access to a lawyer, and that in any case the suspect should have the possibility to meet in private with his lawyer before any questioning. Besides, it requires that Member States ‘shall make the necessary arrangements to ensure that suspects or accused persons who are deprived of liberty shall be in a position to practically and effectively exercise their right of access to a lawyer.’

    It follows from the Directive and the relevant ECtHR case law that the police are not entitled to interrogate a suspect who has not had a prior consultation with the lawyer, unless he has validly waived such right before the interrogation. The only situations where a derogation is possible are mentioned in the Directive, and they include circumstances where there is a pressing need to interrogate a suspect, for instance, to prevent an imminent risk to life or destruction of evidence.

    Source: http://www.erasmuslawreview.nl/tijdschr … 07_004_003

    Legal Advice in Police Custody: From Europe to a Local Police Station;
    Anna Ogorodova & Taru Spronken*

    *Anna Ogorodova, LLM is PhD researcher at the University of Maastricht.
    Dr Taru Spronken is Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure at Maastricht University and Advocate General at the Supreme Court in the Netherlands

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *