The Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under ss 5(4) and 5(5) of the Constitution were not violated and the originating summons is dismissed. No order made as to costs.
From the evidence, Mr Robinson was informed that he was being investigated for Robbery. He was then informed of his right to an attorney, as well as a right to have other persons present. He was told he had a right to keep silent, and also the consequences of not doing so, which was, that if he chose to say anything, it might be used against him (para 18) Charles v. Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3521 (Admin) [CONSIDERED]
Mr Skippings’ argument on behalf of the Plaintiff that, under s 5(4) of the Constitution, the Police were required to inform Mr Robinson that he was entitled to an attorney at public expense is untenable as there is no suggestion in s 5(4) that upon arrest, there is guaranteed the right to representation at the public expense. There is currently no legal aid scheme for persons arrested or detained at the police station (paras 27-33).
Mr Skippings’ argument that the police interpreter provided was not independent is artificial as, from the evidence, there was no complaint that the use of the interpreter adversely affected the Plaintiff (paras 34-35).
The Court found that Ms Gardiner’s argument on behalf of the Attorney General that the relevance of Mr Robinson’s evidence is paramount, must take a back seat to the protection of a constitutional right which is aimed at ensuring fairness in proceedings (paras 37-39) Kuruma v. The Queen [1955] AC 197 per Lord Goddard at p 203 [CONSIDERED]; Charles v. Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3521 (Admin) per Moses LJ at para 11 [APPLIED].
Loading PDF...
This document is 593.3 KB. Do you want to load it?