Salduz v Turkey
Access to a lawyer should be provided from the first police interrogation of a suspect, and the use of incriminating statements made without legal advice will in principle breach article 6.
Facts
Mr Salduz, aged 17, was arrested in Turkey on suspicion of taking part in an unlawful demonstration in support of a terrorist organisation. He was questioned by the police without a lawyer, because Turkish law did not allow access to a lawyer for suspects of offences within the jurisdiction of the state security courts. He made a statement admitting the offence, which he later retracted. His statement was used to convict him.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of article 6. The court said that, in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently practical and effective, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction. The decision led to changes in the law in Scotland, in Cadder v HM Advocate.
Related cases on slavery, liberty and fair trial (articles 4 to 7)
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Brogan v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 117
- Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45
- Golder v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 524
- Guzzardi v Italy (1981) 3 EHRR 333
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
