Access to a Lawyer final quiz
Question #1: Which of these provisions are not included in the Access to a Lawyer Directive?
A provision specifying the circumstances in which legal aid should be granted in order to ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right of access to a lawyer.
A provision defining the earliest point of the criminal process at which a suspect or an accused person should be given access to a lawyer.
A provision relating to access to consular assistance, if the suspected of accused person has been arrested outside their own country.
A provision relating to the right of access to a lawyer in European Arrest Warrant proceedings.
Question #2: Which of these statements about the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the right of access to a lawyer is correct?
The ECtHR has held that if a suspect is denied access to at any point during the pre-trial stage of the criminal process, this would amount to a violation of Article 6(3) ECHR, irrespective of the subsequent conduct of criminal proceedings.
It is clear under ECtHR jurisprudence that suspects have the right to access a lawyer during the trial itself, but it is unclear whether suspects have the right to access pre-trial (e.g. at the police station prior to interrogation).
The ECtHR is unlikely to find a violation of Article 6, if it finds that the denial of the right of access to a lawyer has not prejudiced the fairness of the proceedings.
The ECtHR only recognises the right of access to a lawyer in cases where the suspect has been deprived of their liberty
Question #3: Which of these statements about the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the right of access to a lawyer is inaccurate?
According to ECtHR case-law, there are few, if any circumstances in which an Article 6 violation will have taken place unless there is a conviction resulting from incriminating statements made by a suspect in the absence of a lawyer.
The ECtHR could find a violation of Article 6 if the statement made by the suspect in the absence of a lawyer is not incriminatory per se, but it is used in other ways to damage their defence and it results in a conviction.
ECtHR case-law recognises that there is a wide range of services associated with legal assistance, including the discussion of the case, preparation for questioning, and checking the conditions of detention.
There is no recognition under ECtHR case-law of the right to a private consultation between a suspect and their lawyer prior to interrogation.
Question #4: What does the Directive not say about the right of access to a lawyer?
Suspects and accused persons have the right to have access to a lawyer before they are questioned by the police or by another law enforcement or judicial authority.
Suspects and accused persons have the right to consult with their lawyer in private prior to any interrogation by the police or by another law enforcement or judicial authority.
Suspects and accused persons have the right to have their lawyer present when being questioned.
Any evidence obtained in violation of the right of access to a lawyer must be excluded from the criminal proceedings.
Question #5: In which one of these cases is Article 3 and/or 12 of the Directive least likely to have been violated?
A case in which the suspect was given the opportunity to consult with their lawyer prior to the police interrogation, but the lawyer was not permitted to intervene during the questioning.
A case in which an incriminating statement made at the police station in the absence of a lawyer has resulted in a conviction, but the court has reduced the defendant’s sentence as a way of remedying the violation of their right of access to a lawyer.
A case in which a suspect is questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer, but the parts of his statement which are incriminating are never admitted as evidence before the court.
A case in which the suspect was never given access to a lawyer during questioning because they were summoned initially as a witness, and not a suspect.
Question #6: Which of these statements about the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on the waiving of the right of access to a lawyer is inaccurate?
A waiver is unlikely to be regarded as effective, if it was given voluntarily, but the suspect did not appreciate the consequences of waiving his right.
The suspect’s drug dependency is could be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of the waiver.
The very fact that the suspect was given information about their right to a lawyer and their right to silence indicates that they waived their right of access to a lawyer intelligently.
The ECtHR could find that a waiver was not effective if the suspect was informed about the consequences of waiving his right, but this was done very quickly in a stressful situation
Question #7: Which of these statements about the Directive’s provisions relating to waivers is correct?
Waivers need to be recorded, but there is no specific legal requirement for audio-visual recording.
The Directive specifies that information about waivers must be given in writing, it is insufficient that they were communicated orally.
The stages at which suspects and accused persons can revoke their waiver during their criminal proceedings is a matter left to the laws of Member States.
Disabled persons cannot waive their right of access to a lawyer.
Question #8: Which one of these statements is not an accurate representation of the ECtHR’s position on derogations from the right of access to a lawyer?
The ECtHR recognises that there are circumstances in which a suspect can be denied access to a lawyer, where there are compelling reasons.
The ECtHR has produced little case-law relating to the circumstances in which the right of access to a lawyer can be restricted.
The ECtHR has held that even if there are compelling reasons to restrict the right of access to a lawyer, the restriction must not unduly prejudice the accused’s Article 6 rights.
In the case of Salduz v. Turkey, the ECtHR gave specific factors that need to be taken into account when determining whether or not the denial of a suspect’s right to of access to a lawyer can be justified.
Question #9: In which one of these cases is Article 3 and/or 8 of the Directive least likely to have been violated?
A case in which a police officer begins to question a suspect without a lawyer, because they have been arrested in a remote rural area with very few local lawyers, and a duty lawyer is eventually able to attend the interrogation when they arrive at the police station.
A case in which a suspect is interviewed in the absence of a lawyer on an urgent basis to prevent a deadly terrorist attack, but the information obtained is used solely for intelligence gathering purposes, and not for the prosecution of a crime.
A case in which a suspect is interviewed in the absence of a lawyer on an urgent basis to prevent a deadly terrorist attack, having been informed of their rights in full. The questioning continues for thirty minutes after the interviewing police officer is informed of the lawyer’s arrival at the police station.
A case in which a suspect is interviewed in the absence of a lawyer on account of the serious nature of the accusations against him.
Question #10: Which of these statements about the right of access to a lawyer European Arrest Warrant Proceedings is incorrect?
The Access to a Lawyer Directive does not explicitly require issuing states (Member States requesting the transfer) to provide legal aid for the requested person’s lawyer in the issuing state.
There is a new directive which obliges issuing states to make legal aid available, but only if the EAW is a ‘prosecution’ warrant.
The executing state is obliged to inform the requested person that they are entitled to a lawyer in both the executing state and in the issuing state.
The requested person subject to EAW proceedings is only entitled to information about their right of access to a lawyer, neither the executing nor issuing state need to take positive steps to help them identify lawyers.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Terms of Service