Rights violation found in relation to London bombing suspect
One of four people convicted in relation to failed bombing attacks in London in July 2005 has had a complaint upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, but with no compensation being awarded except a sum towards his legal costs.
The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court yesterday gave judgment in four cases arising out of the incidents of 21 July 2005, when four bombs were detonated on the transport system but failed to explode. The attacks took place only two weeks after another series of bombs killed more than 50 passengers on bus and underground services in London.
In three cases in which the applicants (Ibrahim, Mohammed and Omar) complained of breach of their right under article 6(1) and (3)(c) of the Convention to a fair trial and right to legal assistance, the court held that there had been no breach of rights through their being questioned by the police in urgent “safety interviews” before having had access to legal advice. By 15 judges to two, it decided that there had been an urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life and physical integrity of the public, namely further suicide attacks. There had therefore been compelling reasons for temporary restrictions on their right to legal advice. It was also satisfied that the proceedings as a whole in respect of each of these applicants had been fair.
However, the court held, by 11 votes to six, that there had been a breach of those provisions in respect of the fourth applicant, Abdurahman. He was initially interviewed as a witness, and therefore without legal advice. However, it emerged during questioning that he had assisted a fourth bomber following the failed attack. At that point, according to the applicable code of practice, he should have been cautioned and offered legal advice, but this was not done. After he had made a written witness statement, he was arrested, charged with, and subsequently convicted of, assisting the fourth bomber and failing to disclose information after the attacks.
In his case, the court was not convinced that there had been compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and for failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution Abdurahman at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself. In consequence he had been misled as to his procedural rights. Further, the police decision could not subsequently be reviewed as it had not been recorded and no evidence had been heard as to the reasons behind it.
As there were no compelling reasons, it fell to the Government to show that the proceedings were nonetheless fair. In the court’s view the Government was unable to do this and it accordingly concluded that the overall fairness of Abdurahman’s trial had been prejudiced by the decision not to caution him and to restrict his access to legal advice.
Concluding that it did not follow from the court’s finding of a violation that Abdurahman had been wrongly convicted, it being impossible to speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings had there been no breach of the Convention, the court awarded no compensation to him for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. It awarded €16,000 in respect of legal fees, against a claim of nearly £36,000.