## Facts

- Four applicants were convicted in the United Kingdom for roles connected to the failed 21 July 2005 London transport bombings, which occurred shortly after the 7 July 2005 attacks.
- The first three applicants (Ibrahim, Mohammed, Omar) were arrested under terrorism powers and subjected to urgent “safety interviews” aimed at addressing immediate threats.
- During these safety interviews, access to legal advice was temporarily delayed; the applicants were cautioned and informed about the consequences of answering questions or remaining silent.
- In the safety interviews, the first three applicants denied involvement; at trial they later admitted constructing and carrying devices but disputed intent to kill.
- The fourth applicant (Asiedu) was questioned as a witness, not cautioned as a suspect, not informed of a right to silence, and not provided access to legal advice.
- While still treated as a witness, Asiedu made self-incriminating statements and signed a written statement that was later used at his trial.
- Domestic courts admitted the impugned statements; the first three applicants’ trial judge instructed the jury to consider the absence of legal advice when weighing the safety-interview evidence.
- The UK Court of Appeal dismissed appeals, finding the temporary restrictions justified for public safety and the trials fair overall.
- The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber reviewed whether the proceedings complied with Article 6 § 1 (fair trial) together with Article 6 § 3(c) (legal assistance).

## Issues

1. Whether delaying access to counsel for the first three applicants during urgent terrorism “safety interviews,” and admitting those statements at trial, violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c).
2. Whether questioning the fourth applicant as a witness without caution, without legal advice, and without warning of the right to silence—followed by admission of his statement at trial—rendered the proceedings unfair under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c).

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) as to the first three applicants.
- The Court held there were compelling reasons for temporarily delaying access to counsel for the first three applicants, given an urgent and concrete public-safety threat and concern about further attacks and accomplices.
- Considering overall fairness, the Court emphasized the limited scope and duration of the restriction, the cautions given, the applicants’ denials in the safety interviews, substantial independent evidence, and careful judicial directions on how to evaluate the uncounselled statements.
- The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) as to the fourth applicant.
- The Court concluded there were no compelling reasons to keep treating the fourth applicant as a witness after he incriminated himself and that authorities should have cautioned him and afforded suspect rights, including access to counsel.
- The Court held the fourth applicant’s uncounselled, uncautioned statement significantly contributed to the prosecution case and the trial safeguards did not cure the initial defect.
- The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages to the fourth applicant; no damages were awarded to the first three applicants.

## Legal Principles

- Access to a lawyer should generally be provided from the first police interrogation; restrictions require “compelling reasons” based on the specific circumstances.
- When access to counsel is restricted, the Court applies a two-stage inquiry: (1) whether compelling reasons justified the restriction; and (2) whether, despite the restriction, the proceedings as a whole were fair.
- Article 6 does not impose an automatic exclusionary rule for statements obtained without counsel; admissibility turns on overall fairness, including safeguards and the use made of the statements.
- Acute and immediate terrorism-related risks to life and physical integrity may constitute compelling reasons for short, targeted questioning aimed at preventing imminent harm.
- Continuing to question a person as a witness after self-incrimination, without caution and without access to legal advice, can seriously impair defence rights and render the proceedings unfair where the statement is materially used at trial.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that limited, urgent terrorism “safety interviews” without immediate legal assistance can be compatible with Article 6 where compelling reasons exist and the trial remains fair overall, but found an Article 6 violation where authorities obtained and used a self-incriminating statement from a person treated as a witness without caution, legal advice, or effective notice of the right to silence.


Ibrahim v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 & 40351/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2016)