%0 Journal Article
%T Ibrahim and Others v. UK: Watering down the Salduz principles?
%A Ergul Celiksoy
%J New Journal of European Criminal Law
%@ 2399-293X
%D 2018
%R 10.1177/2032284418778149
%X The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR or ¡®the Court¡¯) has gradually developed considerable jurisprudence affirming the right to access a lawyer prior to or during police interrogation, with Salduz v. Turkey marking a turning point in setting out a strong position on this right (i.e. the Salduz principles). However, in Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom (Ibrahim), the ECtHR expressed that there was a need for further clarifications of the Salduz principles, indicating that there is a two-stage assessment regarding whether any restriction on early access is compatible with the fair trial rights ensured in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR or ¡®the Convention¡¯). This article discusses whether the decision in Ibrahim represents a retreat from the Salduz principles (and a less robust position on the ECHR) by the ECtHR
%K Right to access a lawyer
%K police custody
%K police interrogation
%K custodial legal advice
%K Salduz
%K Ibrahim and Others
%K Salduz principles
%K Salduz test
%K overall fairness assessment
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2032284418778149