Silence of suspect or accused person in criminal proceedings: Right and not weakness

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M.
The silence of a suspect or accused person in criminal proceedings is a right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6 (1)). Unfortunately, in some legal systems and in their criminal practice, the defendant's silence is regarded as confession or acceptance of the charge, a practice that is fundamentally affecting the core of his defense rights.
The right to silence is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence and its usefulness lies in protecting the accused person from self-incrimination.
Monitoring compliance with the right to silence, as well as the related right of self-incrimination, is particularly critical for the offense, that a person is suspected or accused of having committed, but not for example in matters related to identifying a suspect or accused.
The essence of the right to remain silent is to prohibit the suspect or the accused person from speaking, answering questions or providing information to the investigating or prosecuting authorities.
In order to determine whether the right to remain silent or the right not to self-incriminate has been infringed, the interpretation of the right to a fair trial by the European Court of Human Rights under the ECHR should be taken into account.
The right to remain silent begins at the point where the suspect is arrested and is being held at the police station for questioning. The importance of informing the detainee of his right to remain silent is such that even if that person agrees to testify with the police after being informed that the testimony may be used against him, this is not considered to be the appropriate full information, unless his right to remain silent has been clearly and publicly disclosed and his decision to testify has been made without the assistance of a lawyer. (ECtHR, Navone and Others v. Monaco, Stojkovic v. France and Belgium)
The suspect's freedom of choice on whether to remain silent or not is substantially undermined if he chooses not to speak during interrogations and the Authorities use tricks to cause confession or other statements of an incriminating nature by the suspect, which they were not able to obtain during the interrogation. The specific case heard in the ECtHR , involved confession to a police informant sharing the cell of the suspect / applicant and which statements thus obtained, were presented at trial (ECtHR, Allan v. The United Kingdom).
Of course, the European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to silence is not absolute (John Murray v. The United Kingdom, Ibrahim and Others v. The United Kingdom). According to the ECtHR, in examining whether a proceeding has infringed the core of the right, the Court takes particular account of the nature and extent of the coercion, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the proceeding and the use of any evidence obtained in the course of the proceedings. (Jalloh v. Germany, O'Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom, Bykov v Russia, Ibrahim and others v United Kingdom).
In accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2016/343 on enhancing certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused person to stand trial in criminal proceedings, Member States ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right to remain silent , in respect of the offense for which they are suspected or charged (paragraph 1), while the exercise by suspects and accused of the right to remain silent or of non-self-incrimination is neither used nor considered as evidence to have committed the offense (§ 5).
Ιn conclusion, the silence of the suspect or accused person should not be a tool of the investigating or police authorities that leads to his/her guilt, should not be used against him/ her and should not be considered on its own as evidence that the person in question has committed the crime. It is a right of the suspect or accused person and not his/her weakness.
*George Kazoleas is Lawyer in Greece & Cyprus. Read more articles here
FIND US ON FACEBOOK HERE

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more