003-5475953-6873348

WyrokETPCz2016-09-07

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy tymczasowe opóźnienie w zapewnieniu dostępu do adwokata podczas przesłuchania policyjnego w sprawach o terroryzm, a także dopuszczenie uzyskanych w ten sposób oświadczeń jako dowodów, narusza prawo do rzetelnego procesu i pomocy prawnej z art. 6 ust. 1 i 3 lit. c Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Izba Trybunału uznała, że w chwili początkowych przesłuchań policyjnych istniało wyjątkowo poważne i bezpośrednie zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa publicznego, co stanowiło przekonujące powody uzasadniające tymczasowe opóźnienie w dostępie skarżących do adwokatów. Trybunał stwierdził również, że dopuszczenie tych oświadczeń jako dowodów w procesie nie spowodowało nieuzasadnionego naruszenia prawa skarżących do rzetelnego procesu, biorąc pod uwagę krajowe zabezpieczenia legislacyjne, okoliczności uzyskania oświadczeń, możliwość ich kwestionowania oraz siłę innych dowodów oskarżenia.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed, Yassin Omar i Ismail Abdurahman, zostali skazani w Wielkiej Brytanii za udział w zamachach bombowych w Londynie 21 lipca 2005 roku. Trzem pierwszym odmówiono tymczasowo pomocy prawnej podczas "wywiadów bezpieczeństwa" prowadzonych przez policję, a ich oświadczenia zostały dopuszczone jako dowody. Czwarty skarżący, początkowo przesłuchiwany jako świadek, złożył obciążające go oświadczenie bez obecności adwokata, które również zostało wykorzystane w procesie. Wszyscy skarżący zostali skazani na kary pozbawienia wolności.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Izba Trybunału stwierdziła brak naruszenia art. 6 ust. 1 i 3 lit. c Konwencji.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 278 (2016) 07.09.2016 Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment concerning delaying of access to a lawyer during police questioning The European Court of Human Rights will be delivering a Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) at a public hearing on 13 September 2016 at 3 p.m. in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The case concerns the temporary delay in providing access to a lawyer during the police questioning of suspects involved in the 21 July 2005 London bombings and the alleged prejudice to their ensuing trials. Principal facts and complaints The applicants in the first three applications, Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar, are Somali nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, and 1981 respectively. The applicant in the fourth application, Ismail Abdurahman, is a British national who was born in Somalia in 1982. On 7 July 2005 suicide bombers detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing 52 people and injuring countless more. Two weeks later, on 21 July 2005 four bombs were detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene but were later arrested. Following the arrest of the first three applicants � Mr Ibrahim, Mr Mohammed and Mr Omar � they were temporarily refused legal assistance in order for police "safety interviews" (interviews conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property) to be conducted. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, such interviews can take place in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice. During the interviews the applicants denied any knowledge of the events of 21 July. At trial, they acknowledged their involvement in the events but claimed that the bombs had been a hoax and were never intended to explode. The statements made at their safety interviews were admitted at trial. They were convicted in July 2007 of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to a minimum term of 40 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused them leave to appeal against their conviction. Mr Abdurahman, the fourth applicant, was not suspected of having detonated a bomb and was initially interviewed by the police as a witness. He started to incriminate himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he had provided to that suspect. The police did not, at that stage, arrest him and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance. Instead, they continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement from him. He was subsequently arrested and offered legal advice. In his ensuing interviews, he adopted and referred to his written statement. This statement was admitted as evidence at his trial. He was convicted in February 2008 of assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, reduced to eight years on appeal on account of the early assistance that he had given to the police. 1. Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning, alleging that their subsequent convictions were unfair because of the admission at trial of the statements they had made during those police interviews. Procedure The first three applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 October 2008. The fourth application, by Mr Abdurahman, was lodged on 29 July 2009. In its Chamber judgment of 16 December 2014, the European Court of Human Rights, held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 � 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance) of the European Convention. The Court was satisfied that, at the time of the four applicants' initial police interviews, there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, namely the risk of further attacks, and that this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay in allowing the applicants access to lawyers. The Chamber also found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants' right to a fair trial by the admission at their trials of the statements they had made during police interviews and before they had been given access to legal assistance. It took into account the counterbalancing safeguards contained in the national legislative framework, as applied in each of the applicants' cases; the circumstances in which the statements had been obtained and their reliability; the procedural safeguards at trial, and in particular the possibility to challenge the statements; and the strength of the other prosecution evidence. In addition, as concerned the fourth applicant, who had made self-incriminating statements during his police interview, the Chamber emphasised the fact that he had not retracted his statement even once he had consulted a lawyer but had continued to rely on his statement in his defence up until his request that it be excluded at trial. On 1 June 2015 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of two of the applicants (Mr Omar (application no. 50573/08) and Mr Abdurahman (application no. 40351/09)). A Grand Chamber hearing was held on the case in Strasbourg on 25 November 2015. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 15.07.2026. · Źródło