Personal consultation with solicitor must be offered before terror questioning, rules High Court

24 November 2013 by

Screen Shot 2013-11-24 at 10.30.23Elosta v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 3397 – Read Judgment

The High Court has held that a person detained for questioning under the Terrorism Act 2000 is entitled to consult with a solicitor in person prior to answering questions.

The right to consult with a lawyer before one is interviewed by law enforcement officers might be fairly characterised as a “pop culture” right. Reality television shows, crime dramas, even block buster films (I’m thinking Neo in the first Matrix film – pictured) have all played a part in ensuring that the right to legal advice in that context is ingrained in the consciousness of the masses.

This case dealt with a specific and rather technical variation on that theme.

On 10 November 2012, Mr Elosta arrived at Heathrow airport having been to Saudi Arabia on the Hajj. Upon presenting himself at the Immigration desk, he was stopped by police officers who began to question him. He provided his personal details, but asked to speak to a solicitor before answering further questions. He was permitted to speak to his solicitor by telephone, and she indicated that she would arrange for a solicitor to attend the airport. However, the police indicated that they would not wait for that solicitor to arrive before proceeding with questioning.

The questions for the court were (a) whether or not Mr Elosta was entitled to speak to his solicitor at all; (b) if so, whether or not he was entitled to speak to his solicitor in person; and (c) if so, whether or not the continued detention and questioning was lawful.

To provide a bit of legal context, Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act provides a power for a police officer to question a person at a port or border for the purpose of determining whether or not they may be a terrorist (defined in section 40(1)(b) of the Act as a person who “is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”). The stakes can be significant. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7, a person can be detained for the purpose of questioning, and under paragraph 5, a person has to answer the questions put and provide the information requested; failure to do so is an offence which may lead to imprisonment.

Mr Justice Bean answered the questions the court faced using a straightforward approach of statutory interpretation, in light of the surrounding statutory materials. In particular, he looked to the Code of Practice issued by the Secretary of State. That was relevant because paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 of the Act provided that officers exercising their powers under the Act “shall perform” them in accordance with the Code.

In respect of the right to consult simpliciter, it was necessary to look to Schedule 8 paragraph 7 of the Act, which provides that “a person detained under Schedule 7 or section 41 at a police station in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable, privately and at any time.” Crucially, Mr Elosta was not detained at a police station, but at the airport. Did that make a difference? The court said it did not. There was no reason why a person detained at somewhere other than a police station should be denied the right to consult. Furthermore, the Code of Practice required that when someone was detained for questioning under Schedule 7, they had to be given a special TACT 2 form, which said:

You may consult either in person, in writing or on the telephone, privately with a solicitor. If you do not wish to do so now, you may do so later and at any time while you are detained.

Indeed, it was also the view of the Secretary of State (intervening in the case) that consultation was permitted by law, whether detained in a police station or not.

Moving on to whether or not the right to consult entailed a right to consult in person, Mr Justice Bean said that his reading of the words of the TACT 2 form (set out above) was that the detained person had a choice as to the form in which he communicated with his solicitor – it was not a choice for the police, as argued by the Police Commissioner. Moreover, if a solicitor attended, they were allowed to be present during questioning (he reached this conclusion based on the wording of Schedule 8, which provided for the right to consult “at any time”). However, Mr Justice Bean also confirmed that this right to choose the method of communication could not be used by a detained person so as to frustrate the purpose of the detention (i.e. to avoid answering questions), bearing in mind that the maximum length of time a person could be detained was nine hours.

The result was that the questioning of the Claimant after he had been denied the opportunity to consult with his solicitor in person (which lasted for 45 minutes) was unlawful, and he was awarded a declaration and nominal damages to reflect that. However, his detention did not thereby become unlawful under Article 5. If the police had waited for the solicitor, he would have been detained for even longer, and so he had suffered no loss in that respect. Nor had the purpose of his detention disappeared; he remained lawfully detained for the purpose of securing the fulfilment of his obligations to answer questions put to him.

It will be seen from the above that the right to consult with a solicitor is perhaps more nuanced and less straightforward than pop culture would have us believe. Nevertheless, the right was firmly vindicated by the courts in this case.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: