header-logo header-logo

Human rights

13 October 2011
Issue: 7485 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Ambrose v Harris (Procurator Fiscal Oban) (Scotland) and other appeals [2011] UKSC 43, [2011] All ER (D) 45 (Oct)

The fact that incriminating statements were made without access to a lawyer did not of itself mean that the rights of the defence were irretrievably prejudiced. The correct starting point, when considering whether the person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) had been breached, was to identify the moment as from which he was charged for the purposes of Art 6(1) of the Convention.

The test was whether the situation of the individual was substantially affected. His position would have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him was being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled. The moment at which the individual was no longer a potential witness but had become a suspect provided as good a guide as any as to when he should be taken to have been charged for the purposes of Art 6(1). Any questioning of an individual who had been detained in custody by persons who

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll