Ambrose v Harris [2011] UKSC 43, [2011] 1 WLR 2435

Facts

• The case involved two appeals concerning individuals, Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Harris, who were questioned by police in Scotland.
• Both appellants were given warnings but had not been formally charged at the time of police questioning.
• The appellants argued that their rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guaranteeing a fair trial, were engaged at the time of these early interviews.
• The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of both individuals to determine what constitutes a “criminal charge” under Article 6.

Issues

1. Whether Article 6 ECHR protections apply during police questioning prior to a formal charge.
2. What constitutes a “criminal charge” for the purposes of Article 6 in the context of police investigation.
3. Whether the right to legal advice is triggered during pre-charge police interviews.

Decision

• The Supreme Court held that Article 6 protections do not apply at the stage of police questioning prior to a formal charge or before meeting the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) definition of a “criminal charge”.
• The Court endorsed that a “criminal charge” requires official notice from a competent legal authority of a specific criminal allegation.
• It was determined that mere suspicion or police questioning alone does not satisfy this threshold.
• Neither Mr. Ambrose nor Mr. Harris were considered “charged” for the purposes of Article 6 at the time of their police interviews.
• The ruling confirmed that police officers in Scotland may question suspects without triggering Article 6, provided national legal safeguards are maintained.

Legal Principles

• Article 6 ECHR ensures the right to a fair trial but does not apply solely on grounds of suspicion or investigative questioning.
• A “criminal charge” under Article 6 exists only upon official notice of a specific criminal allegation from a competent authority.
• Applying Article 6 at the investigative stage, before formal accusation, is not required and could hinder lawful police inquiry.
• National laws must establish procedural safeguards for suspects, including rules on detention, questioning, and access to legal assistance, to maintain fairness during police investigations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Ambrose v Harris determined that Article 6 ECHR rights are not engaged solely by police suspicion or early questioning; protections begin only with formal charging or official notice as recognized by the ECtHR. The decision balances the need for effective criminal investigations with the requirement for fair process, emphasizing strong national legal safeguards during the pre-charge phase.