R v. O'Hara [2008] UKHL 25

Court: House of Lords

Facts: In three separate cases, the appellants were questioned by the police prior to being detained at a police station or receiving legal advice. In one case, the appellant was questioned after being subdued and handcuffed by the police. The prosecution relied heavily on statements made during these questioning sessions, which the appellants argued violated their Article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial.

Issue: Were the statements made by the appellants admissible as evidence in their criminal cases, given that they were made before proper legal representation or during coercive circumstances?

Held: Appeal dismissed; the statements were deemed admissible except in the third case, where the circumstances were sufficiently coercive to render the evidence inadmissible. The House of Lords found that Strasbourg jurisprudence did not provide for broader protections regarding access to legal advice prior to detention.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Hope: Highlighted that since Strasbourg had not clearly addressed the issue of legal advice prior to custody, it would be prudent to await further clarification from the European Court. Lord Kerr (Dissenting): Argued that evidence in all three cases should be inadmissible, emphasizing the duty of domestic courts to uphold Convention rights, even in the absence of clear Strasbourg guidance. He criticized the arbitrary selection of the moment of custody as the point for accessing legal advice, asserting that legal representation should be required whenever a suspect might incriminate themselves.

💡Leveluplaw: This judgment has drawn criticism for its reliance on Strasbourg's silence regarding the issue rather than an independent assessment of the facts and rights at stake. Critics argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 mandates domestic courts to make decisions on Convention rights without waiting for Strasbourg's direction. The case underscores the ongoing tension between domestic interpretations of human rights and European jurisprudence.

Previous
Previous

P v. Cheshire West and Chester Council [2014] UKSC 19

Next
Next

R v Horncastle & Others [2009] UKSC 14