Source: https://www.juridicainternational.eu/index.php?id=14990
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 13:00:52+00:00

Document:
In order to guarantee that the rights of a suspect are respected throughout the criminal proceedings, he or she should have the right to counsel from the very early stages of the proceedings, at least immediately upon arrest. *1 Nevertheless, as soon as this principle is recognised, several questions arise. First, should this right be interpreted in such a way that the suspect has a right to counsel not only before procedural acts that involve him or her but also during these acts? Secondly, should the right be absolute in nature? In this article, it is suggested that the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, and the arguments supporting this perspective are brought out. Additionally, it is discussed that this right is subject to restrictions if the suspect him- or herself agrees therewith or there are compelling reasons for this. For us to answer the two questions mentioned above, firstly, the sources of the right of suspects to counsel in pre-trial proceedings are explicated. Here legal acts and judicial practice from both Europe and the United States (US) are used as examples, the latter being a state in which the principles of the right to counsel have been well under development for a long time. Next, the advantages and disadvantages of guaranteeing the right to counsel during pre-trial proceedings without any restrictions are analysed. Finally, warranted justifications for restriction of the right to counsel in pre-trial proceedings are discussed, with mindfulness of the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia *2 , the (draft) legislation of the European Union (EU), and the experience of the US.
Everyone who is deprived of his or her liberty shall be informed promptly, in a language and manner which he or she understands, of the reason for the deprivation of liberty and of his or her rights, and shall be given the opportunity to notify those closest to him or her. A person suspected of a criminal offence shall also be promptly given the opportunity to choose and confer with counsel.
The suspect’s right to choose counsel and confer with him or her is also provided for by the Estonian Code of Criminal Procedure *5 (CCP). According to §34 (1) 3) of the CCP, the suspect enjoys the right to counsel’s assistance *6 , and, according to the fourth clause of the same subsection, he or she has the right to confer with counsel without the presence of other persons. These rights have to be promptly explained to the suspect (first sentence of §33 (2) of CCP). Additionally, the suspect has the right to the presence of counsel when interrogated or participating in confrontation, comparison of testimony to circumstances, or presentation for identification (§34 (1) 5) of CCP). Therefore, when interpreting the Constitution and the CCP together, one could conclude that in Estonia as soon as a person acquires the status of a suspect in criminal proceedings, he or she has the right to counsel, which comprises the right to confer with that person, receive his or her assistance, and have him or her present during the procedural acts that are performed in the presence of the suspect.
The other aspect of the Salduz judgement that remains unclear is the interpretation of the notion of ‘police interrogation’. In Zaichenko v. Russia *20 , the ECtHR held that there is no right to counsel if a person is questioned in the course of a road check, because ‘the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody’. *21 It has been suggested that, given this ruling, a suspect enjoys a right to counsel only when his or her liberty has been limited in a significant way. *22 Nevertheless, to be able to draw extensive conclusions, one should await additional judgements from the ECtHR.
The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest *23 , which has been drafted in line with the practice of the ECtHR and which is aimed at boosting mutual trust among the Member States *24 , emphasises that access to a lawyer must be granted upon questioning *25 , deprivation of liberty, or a procedural or evidence‑gathering act. *26 Therefore, the institutions of the EU have interpreted the Salduz judgement in such a way that it gives suspects the right to have counsel present during interrogations *27 , and, as they use the phrase ‘any questioning by the police’, they do not expect the suspect to be detained or his or her liberty to be restricted in any other way before enjoying the right to counsel. Additionally, in contrast to the judicial practice of the ECtHR, the proposal specifies the situations wherein suspects have a right to have counsel present in pre-trial proceedings: it points out not only questioning and deprivation of liberty but also any other evidence-gathering act in addition to questioning.
In the US, the right to counsel in pre-trial proceedings has historically been divided between two sources: the Fifth *28 and the Sixth Amendment. *29 In the case Massiah v. United States *30 , the US Supreme Court (USSC) held that statements deliberately elicited by authorities from the previously indicted accused in the absence of his or her counsel deprived the accused of his or her right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and, therefore, such statements could not be used as evidence against him or her in trial. *31 The next case was Miranda v. Arizona *32 , in which the USSC held that the prosecution may not use statements made as a result of questioning initiated by authorities after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective for securing the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. *33 Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of counsel and a statement is taken, the prosecution’s side has a burden of demonstrating that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his or her right to counsel. *34 Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that if a person is held in custody and not yet indicted, the right to counsel is indispensable to the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination: the role of counsel here is to guarantee that people would not testify against themselves involuntarily.
At first, the USSC seemed to have the idea that the Massiah and Miranda rules are different, with one meant for situations wherein adversary proceedings have already begun and serving the principle of equality of arms and with the other being for the investigative stage of proceedings, wherein the privilege against self-incrimination prevails. *35 Nevertheless, the USSC has made a couple of decisions indicating that the Massiah and Miranda rules are not so different. For example, a statement obtained in breach of the Sixth or Fifth Amendment may be used for impeachment purposes *36 , and, also, its ‘fruits’ may be used as evidence during the trial *37 ; in addition, there is no difference in the waiver rules. *38 This has led some authors to propose that there should be one uniform right to counsel from the very beginning of the proceedings *39 , which would be an approach similar to that applied in Europe.
There are a number of arguments supporting the ECtHR’s conclusion that the right to counsel should be guaranteed to suspects ‘at the initial stages of police interrogation’.
Counsel provides the suspect with the technical skills to exercise his or her rights in the criminal proceedings. The suspect, who is usually a common person without expertise in substantive and procedural law, does not have full awareness of his or her rights and lacks skill in exercising them. *40 Here counsel contributes to the principle of equality of arms. *41 In the context of pre-trial proceedings, it is very difficult to exclude the right to counsel on the basis of an argument that the proceedings are not yet adversarial, as some justices of the USSC have tried to do. *42 As the larger body of evidence later presented in the trial is gathered during the pre-trial stage of proceedings—and if it is not presented as evidence in trial, at least the information about evidence (e.g., about witnesses) is obtained during pre-trial proceedings—it is most necessary for the suspect to have a legal professional by his or her side. *43 Although, for instance, according to §211 (2) of the Estonian CCP, an investigative body and a Prosecutor’s Office shall ascertain in pre-trial procedure the facts both vindicating and speaking against the suspect, one can readily conclude that, because, in reality, both of these bodies have finding the guilty party as a goal, the suspect clearly needs a provider of assistance who is completely on his or her side.
There is an interesting dilemma faced by the justice system and, more specifically, the whole society, where the right to have counsel present during interrogations is concerned. It could be summarised as follows: ‘The human craving for justice is evident from public reaction whenever a criminal evades capture and punishment—and whenever an innocent is wrongfully convicted and sent to prison.’ *53 The more serious the charges the suspect faces, the more society is interested in him or her being caught and punished, which means that the best option would be to interrogate him or her without the presence of counsel, as counsel’s assistance may prevent him or her from speaking. But, at the same time, the more serious the charges, the more society is interested in excluding the chance of an innocent person being convicted, which means that the assistance of counsel should be guaranteed to the suspect from the very beginning. This dilemma, which also arises with less serious crimes (although not so sharply), is a very difficult one to solve. So far, both the USSC and the ECtHR have addressed it on the basis of the specific facts of the case. In addition, the EU has tried to bring some clarity to the matter, as will be analysed in the next section of this article.
The ECtHR has a stricter approach to the matter, stating that ‘a waiver of the right [to counsel] must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance’. *58 A waiver has to be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, which means that ‘it must be shown that he or she [the suspect] could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be’. *59 In its judgements, the ECtHR has also stressed a need to protect vulnerable suspects and explained that here the authorities should put extra effort into guaranteeing that the person understands the right and the consequences of the waiver of it. *60 This ECtHR stance is in accordance with research done in the US concluding that a substantial proportion of adolescents and adults with mental disabilities have impaired understanding of their Miranda rights and even if the adolescents seem to have an adequate understanding of these rights, they do not grasp the relevance of these to their own situation. *61 In Estonia, waiver of the right to counsel in pre-trial proceedings is not allowed if the suspect has not reached the age of majority or has a mental disability (§45 (2) 1) and 2) of CCP). This means that the CCP, as does the ECtHR, assumes that vulnerable suspects need special protection.
From the developments in the EU described above, it can be concluded that both the ECtHR and the EU have left the concept of ‘compelling reasons’ to be defined by the Member States in light of the special circumstances of the case. In Estonia, the Supreme Court has interpreted §21 (1) of the Constitution and stressed that this right may be restricted only for purposes of protecting another fundamental right or value arising from the Constitution. *71 This could be, for example, the life of another person, physical integrity, freedom, property (dealt with in §§ 16, 18, 20, and 32 of the Constitution, respectively), or public order (the Constitution explicitly allows restriction of rights provided for in its §§ 26, 33, 40, 45, and 47 in order to protect public order). Nevertheless, the restriction must always be provided for by law. *72 According to the second sentence of §33 (2) of the CCP, interrogation may be postponed if this is necessary for ensuring the participation of counsel. To interpret this sentence in accordance with the Constitution, one has to conclude that whenever counsel cannot be present during the interrogation but the suspect wishes him or her to be or when the presence of counsel is mandatory, the interrogation has to be postponed. Therefore, it could be argued that in Estonia any restriction of suspects’ right to have counsel present during interrogations is prohibited unless the suspect him- or herself waives the right to counsel. If the legislator finds any other restriction to be necessary, it should add it to the CCP.
The right to have counsel in pre-trial proceedings is not an absolute right, as one can conclude from analysis of the legal acts of Estonia, stances taken by the EU, and the judicial practice of the ECtHR and of the USSC. First, it is a right that can be waived, at least in the majority of criminal cases. Secondly, different values must be taken into account when this right is applied, which means that in some cases it could be concluded that the suspect does not have the right to have counsel present during a specific stage of the pre‑trial proceedings even if he or she demands a lawyer’s presence. According to the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of Estonia, the values that may bring about this situation are the ones that are protected by the Constitution. The viewpoint of the EU and the ECtHR is that the restriction allowed to the right to have counsel in pre-trial proceedings is any compelling reason stemming from specific facts of the case. Nevertheless, in order for the right to have counsel present in pre-trial proceedings in Estonia to be restricted, the restriction has to come from the law. The CCP provides that a suspect may waive his or her right to have counsel unless that participation is mandatory under the CCP, but it does not give any other justifications for restrictions, which means that in Estonia the right to have counsel present in pre-trial proceedings is an absolute one, unless the suspect him- or herself agrees to participate without counsel.
*1 Green Paper from the Commission—Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union (19.2.2003, COM(2003) 75 final), Sections 4.1 and 4.3 (a).
*2 Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus. – RT 1992, 26, 349; RT I, 27.4.2011, 2 (in Estonian). The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. Unofficial translation available at http://www.legaltext.ee/et/andmebaas/tekst.asp?loc=text&dok=X0000K1&keel=en&pg=1&ptyyp=RT&tyyp=X&query=p%F5hiseadus (most recently accessed on 16.8.2012).
*3 Supreme Court Criminal Chamber ruling, 3-1-1-114-02, paragraph 7.3. – RT III 2002, 34, 370 (in Estonian).
*4 E.-J.Truuväli et al. (eds). Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus: Kommenteeritud väljaanne (The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia: Commented Edition), 2nd ed. Tallinn: Juura 2008, §21 (comment 6) (in Estonian).
*5 Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik. – RT I 2003, 27, 166; RT I, 17.4.2012, 6 (in Estonian).
*6 In accordance with §45 (1) of the CCP, counsel may participate in a criminal proceeding as of the moment at which a person acquires the status of a suspect in the proceedings.
*7 John Murray v. the United Kingdom , application no. 18731/91, 8.2.1996; Magee v. the United Kingdom,application no. 28135/95, 6.6.2000; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, application no. 39846/98, 6.10.2001.
*8 Salduz v. Turkey, application no. 36391/02, 27.11.2008.
*9 A. Beijer. False confessions during police interrogations and measures to prevent them. – European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 2010 (18), pp. 312–313; C. Brants. The reluctant Dutch response to Salduz. – Edinburgh Law Review 2011 (15), p. 302.
WEB.pdf (most recently accessed on 1.3.2012).
*11 See Note 8, p. 50.
*12 Ibid ., p. 52. But not during the initial questioning when the person is not yet suspect: see Smolik v. Ukraine,application no. 11778/05, 19.2.2012. In 2010, this court expanded the right to counsel to those situations wherein the suspect is deprived of his or her liberty irrespective of any questioning; see Dayanan v. Turkey, application no. 7377/03, 13.10.2009, p. 32. Additionally, the Court has found since that the guarantees described in Salduz have to be applied for witnesses also, when they are in reality suspected of a crime; see Brusco v. France, application no. 1466/07, 14.10.2010, p. 47.
*13 Aba v. Turkey ,applications no. 7638/02 and 24146/04, 3.3.2009; Lazarenko v. Ukraine,application no. 22313/04, 28.10.2010; Hüseyin Habip Taşkın v. Turkey , application no. 5289/06, 1.2.2011; Šebalj v. Croatia,application no. 4429/09, 28.6.2011.
*14 J.S. Hodgson. Safeguarding suspects’ rights in Europe: A comparative perspective. – New Criminal Law Review 2011 (14), p. 657.
*15 HR, 30.6.2009, no. 2411.08 J, NbSr 2009, 249.
*16 But not during interrogation, as seen when one analyses paragraph 48 of the judgement. See also F. Leverick. The Supreme Court strikes back. – Edinburgh Law Review 2011 (15), p. 290. However, after the Cadder judgement, Scotland changed its procedural rules, and now every detainee has a right to consult with his or her counsel before and during questioning (but presence is not required; consultation can be done by telephone also). For more about this, see F. Leverick. The right to legal assistance during detention. – Edinburgh Law Review 2011 (15), p. 360.
*17 Cadder v. HM Advocate , UKSC 43 (26.10.2010).
*19 A. Dorange, S. Field. Reforming defence rights in French police custody: A coming together in Europe. – International Journal of Evidence and Proof 2012 (16), p. 154.
*20 Zaichenko v. Russia, application no. 39660/02, 18.2.2010.
*22 T.A.H.M. Van de Laar, R.L. De Graaff. Salduz and Miranda: Is the US Supreme Court pointing the way? – European Human Rights Law Review 2011 (3), p. 307.
*23 Brussels, 8.6.2011, COM(2011) 326 final, 2011/0154 (COD). Available at http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0326:FIN:EN:PDF (most recently accessed on 1.3.2012).
*24 Ibid., explanatory memo, p. 4.
*25 Later on, the Presidency suggested use of the term ‘official interview’, explaining that it means ‘the official questioning by competent authorities of a suspect or accused person regarding his involvement in a criminal offence, irrespective of the place where it is conducted or the stage of the proceedings when it takes place’, according to the revised text of the proposal, document 7337/12, 9.3.2012, p. 14. Available at http://eurocrim.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/cms/en/doc/1729.pdf (most recently accessed on 1.4.2012).
*26 See Note 23, Article 3, paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c).
*27 Paragraph 6 of the directive proposal states that the directive ‘promotes the application of the Charter, in particular Articles 4, 6, 7, 47 and 48, by building upon Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights’.
*28 The Constitution of the United States of America. Available at http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/ (most recently accessed on 1.3.2012). According to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’.
*29 Ibid. According to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ‘have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence’.
*30 Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964).
*32 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
*35 B.G. Hungate-Noland. Texas v. Cobb: A narrow road ahead for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. – University of Richmond Law Review 2001–2002 (35), pp. 1205–1206.
*36 On the Sixth Amendment right to counsel: Kansas v. Ventris, 129 S. Ct. 1984, 1847 (2009). On the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
*37 On the Sixth Amendment right to counsel: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). On the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 311 (1985).
*38 In Patterson v. United States, the USSC decided that the Fifth Amendment waiver is sufficient for waiving the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (487 U.S. 285 (1988)).
*40 S. Trechsel. Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005,p. 245; Salduz v. Turkey (see Note 8), p. 54.
*41 Salduz v. Turkey (see Note 8), p. 53.
*42 Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), p. 494, Justice Stewart, dissenting.
*43 Salduz v. Turkey (see Note 8), p. 54. It could be claimed that the course of pre-trial proceedings determines the course of trial.
*44 Lazarenko v. Ukraine (see Note 13), p. 50: ‘Having access to a lawyer ensures that the accused was able to make a good decision for his or her defence.’ A.M. Torres Chedraui. An analysis of the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of human rights in light of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. – Tilburg Law Review 2010–2011 (15), pp. 223–224.
*45 Salduz v. Turkey (see Note 8), pp. 53–54.
*46 Beijer (see Note 9), p. 324.
*47 L.A. Henkel, K.J. Coffman. Memory distortions in coerced false confessions: A source monitoring framework analysis. – Applied Cognitive Psychology 2004 (18), pp. 569, 582. The more strongly the authorities believe that the suspect is, in fact, guilty, the more likely they are to use these techniques on him or her. However, there is not actually any reason to believe that they are able to assess correctly whether the suspect is guilty or not. On the contrary, there is considerable research concluding that interrogators are not accurate in that. M. Costanzo, E. Gerrity, M.B. Lykes. Psychologists and the use of torture in interrogations. – Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2007 (7)/1, p. 11.
*48 S.M. Kassin et al. Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. – Law and Human Behavior 2010 (34)/3, pp. 14–15.
*49 Trechsel (see Note 40), p. 284.
*50 R.J. Toney. Disclosure of evidence and legal assistance at custodial interrogation: What does the European Convention on Human Rights require? – International Journal of Evidence and Proof 2001 (5), p. 40.
*51 Miranda v. Arizona (see Note 32), p. 516, Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White, dissenting.
*52 W.S. White. Deflecting a suspect from requesting an attorney. – University of Pittsburgh Law Review 2006–2007 (68), pp. 32–33.
*53 Kassin et al. (see Note 48), p. 49.
*54 R.A. Leo. Inside the interrogation room. – Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 1995–1996 (86), pp. 276, 301.
*55 E.g., Connecticut v. Parrett, 479 U.S. 523 (1987).
*56 E.g., the USSC has held to be valid a confession made by a suspect who thought that as long as his or her statements were not in writing they could not be used against him or her (North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979)). It has also refused to exclude confessions obtained after the police falsely told a suspect that his or her colleague had already confessed to the crime (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969)) and after the police deceived a suspect’s lawyer as to when interrogation would take place (Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986)).
/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html (most recently accessed on 1.3.2012), the accused’s freedom to make up his or her mind and to manifest his or her will shall not be impaired by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception, or hypnosis. In Estonia, the CCP provides that evidence shall not be collected by torturing a person or using violence against him or her in any other manner, or through means affecting a person’s memory capacity or degrading his or her human dignity (§64 (1)).
*58 Pishchalnikov v. Russia, application no. 7025/04, 24.9.2009, p. 77.
*59 Ibid. The EU acknowledges the waiver in similar conditions in Article 9 of the proposal for a directive discussed above.
*60 Panovits v. Cyprus ,application no. 4268/04, 11.12.2008. See also Plonka v. Poland, wherein the suspect was an alcoholic and the Court stated that ‘ [i]n the circumstances of the present case, the assertion in the form stating her rights that the applicant had been reminded of her right to remain silent or to be assisted by a lawyer […] cannot be considered reliable’ ( application no. 20310/02, 31.3.2009, p. 37).
*61 Kassin et al. (see Note 48), p. 8.
*64 New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
*65 Note 23, Article 8 (a).
*66 Ibid., Article 3, paragraph 1 (b) and explanatory memo, p 20.
*67 General comments on the proposal, document 12643/11, 13.7.2011. Available at http://eurocrim.jura.uni‑tuebingen.de/cms/en/doc/1590.pdf (most recently accessed on 1.4.2012).
*68 Note by Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom on the proposal, document 14495/11, 22.9.2011. Available at http://eurocrim.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/cms/en/doc/1625.pdf (most recently accessed on 1.4.2012).
*69 See Note 25, p. 21.
*71 Judgement of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court of 18.6.2010, case 3-4-1-5-10, paragraph 38, 43. Available at http://www.nc.ee/?id=1176 (most recently accessed on 1.3.2012).
*72 Truuväli et al. (see Note 4), §11 (comment 3.3.2).

References: §34
 §33
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §211
 §21
 §33
 §21
 §45
 v. 
 application no. 18731
 v. 
 v. 
 application no. 39846
 v. 
 application no. 36391
 v. 
 v. 
 application no. 7377
 v. 
 application no. 1466
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 application no. 5289
 v. 
 v. 
 UKSC 
 v. 
 application no. 39660
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 application no. 7025
 v. 
 v. 
 application no. 20310
 v. 
 §11