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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll