BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

    No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
    Thank you very much for your support!



    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights
    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Muktar Said IBRAHIM, Ramzi MOHAMMED, Yassin OMAR v the United Kingdom against the United Kingdom - 50541/08, 50571/08 and 50573/08 [2012] ECHR 976 (22 May 2012)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/976.html
    Cite as: [2012] ECHR 976

    [New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


    FOURTH SECTION

    Applications nos 50541/08, 50571/08 and 50573/08
    Muktar Said IBRAHIM against the United Kingdom
    Ramzi MOHAMMED against the United Kingdom
    and Yassin OMAR against the United Kingdom

    lodged on 22 October 2008

    The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.


    QUESTION


  1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, in view of the admission of the evidence of the safety interviews at trial, and in particular:


    2. (a) were there “compelling reasons” to justify restrictions to the right of access to a lawyer (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, BAILII: [2008] ECHR 1542 , § 55, ECHR 2008. See also John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, BAILII: [1996] ECHR 3 , §§ 64-65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 I);


    (b) what was the significance, if any, of the administration of the incorrect caution;


    (c) what is the relevance, if any, of the fact that the applicants complain about the admission of exculpatory lies told during the police interviews, rather than adverse inferences drawn from silence or self-incriminating statements;


    (d) were the rights of the defence unduly or irretrievably prejudiced by the admission of the statements at trial and their use to support the applicants’ convictions (see Salduz, cited above, § 55. See also John Murray, cited above, § 63; and Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 41, ECHR 2000 VI)?

     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/976.html