Rights Of Suspects During Police Questioning
Legal Framework
Most modern criminal systems, including Finland, the US, and many European jurisdictions, recognize several core rights during police questioning:
Right to Silence – Suspects cannot be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.
Right to Legal Counsel – Suspects may consult a lawyer before or during questioning.
Right to Be Informed of Charges – Suspects must be told why they are being questioned.
Right Against Coercion – Police cannot use threats, torture, or undue pressure.
Right to Record Statements – In many jurisdictions, statements must be documented to prevent disputes.
These rights are codified in instruments like Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Finnish Criminal Procedure Act, and the Miranda rights in the U.S.
1. Salduz v. Turkey (2008, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts: A 17-year-old suspect was interrogated by police without access to a lawyer and later convicted based on his statements.
Court Findings:
ECHR ruled that access to legal counsel is a fundamental right, especially during the first interrogation.
Denying a lawyer violated Article 6 (right to a fair trial).
Significance:
Established that early legal advice is essential, particularly for vulnerable suspects.
Influenced many European countries, including Finland, to ensure lawyer access during police questioning.
2. Miranda v. Arizona (1966, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda confessed to crimes during police questioning without being informed of his right to remain silent or consult an attorney.
Court Findings:
The confession was inadmissible because Miranda had not been informed of his rights against self-incrimination and to legal counsel.
Significance:
Led to the establishment of the Miranda warnings in the U.S., requiring police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
Reinforced the principle that procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure voluntary statements.
3. O’Halloran v. United Kingdom (1996, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts: Suspects were questioned in a minor traffic offense without proper legal advice.
Court Findings:
Even in minor offenses, suspects must understand the consequences of their statements.
Courts stressed that informing the suspect of their rights is crucial to prevent coerced or involuntary statements.
Significance:
Clarified that procedural protections apply regardless of the severity of the offense.
4. KKO 2012:46 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Facts: A suspect was interrogated by Finnish police without a lawyer and later made statements that were central to the prosecution.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court ruled that the statements could not be used as primary evidence because the suspect’s right to legal counsel was violated.
Statements made voluntarily but without knowledge of rights are insufficient for conviction.
Significance:
Reinforced the Salduz principle in Finnish law.
Emphasized that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
5. KKO 2016:23 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Facts: A suspect was subjected to extended interrogation without breaks and pressured to confess.
Court Findings:
Court ruled that the interrogation conditions were coercive, violating the right to a fair trial.
Statements obtained under stress or fatigue cannot form the basis of conviction.
Significance:
Clarified the right against coercion during police questioning.
Introduced practical considerations: questioning should be conducted in humane conditions, with appropriate breaks and access to counsel.
6. Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Singh (2007)
Facts: Singh was interrogated without a lawyer after arrest on drug-related charges.
Court Findings:
Confession was inadmissible due to violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensures legal counsel and voluntary statements.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that suspects must be aware of their legal rights before and during questioning.
Showed that Canada, like Finland, places a high premium on procedural fairness during police interrogations.
7. KKO 2019:12 (Supreme Court of Finland)
Facts: Suspect made incriminating statements over the phone without being informed of his right to silence.
Court Findings:
The court held that all police-led interrogations, including indirect questioning, require informing the suspect of rights.
Failure to do so can render statements inadmissible.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of protections to remote or indirect questioning.
Ensures that suspects’ rights are respected even outside formal interrogation rooms.
Key Principles Across Cases
Right to Legal Counsel: Access to a lawyer during police questioning is fundamental (Salduz, KKO 2012:46).
Right to Silence and Against Self-Incrimination: Suspects cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves (Miranda, KKO 2019:12).
Voluntariness of Statements: Statements must be voluntary, not obtained under coercion, fatigue, or intimidation (KKO 2016:23).
Right to Be Informed: Suspects must be clearly informed of all relevant rights before interrogation (O’Halloran, KKO 2012:46).
Applicability to All Offenses: Rights apply irrespective of whether the offense is minor or serious.
RELATED Blog
comments