Concepts of Criminal Procedure

Art 8 (privacy)Art 5(3) (detention)Art 6 (lawyer/imp compul)Art 6 (non-incrim)Art 6(1) & 3(d) (absent witness)Art 3 violate art 6 (evidence)Art 8 violate art 6 (evidence)

– interference by the state?

– reasonable expectation of privacy (Buck)

– reasonable suspicion

– right to lawyer triggered?

(Beuze 124, Salduz 54)

-right tampered with ?

Will dependent or independent evidence? (Van Weerelt 55)-was there a good reason? (Al-Khawaja 120-125)

measure fall within the scope of art. 3 ECHR? (Jalloh (§§67-73))

– 5 factors


– accordance with law (Kruslin 27) 

     – legal basis

     – sufficient quality                 – accessible

        – foreseeable (Kru 35 + ECHR –> leg aim and prop/sub)

     – compliance with law

– lawfulness 

     – legal basis

     – sufficient quality

        – foresseable and accessible

     – compliance

     – right to be informed (art 5(2) ECHR)

– justified? (Ibrahim 258,269,273-264)

– compelling reasons? (Ibra 258)

– exceptional, temp, asses individual, scope and content (Ibra 259)

-legal basis

Allan criteria (44)

– nature and degree

– safeguards

– how evidence was used

– sole or decisive (Al-Khawaja 126-146)a. Necessity
b. Health risk involved
c. Manner in which the treatment is administered
d. Medical supervision available
e. Effects on the suspect’s health
b. Lawfulness
i. Domestic legal basis
ii. Quality of the law
iii. Compliance of the measure with the law
c. Legitimate aim
d. Necessity
– legitimate aim

 |pre-trial detention|

suspect brought in front of judge (Magee 74)

     – in person

     – independent judge (Magee 81)

     – brought promptly ( Magee 77-78)

     – automatically (Magee 79)

-fairness assessment (Ibra 269, 273-274)Was procedure followed? (Van Weerelt 55)– Sufficient counterbalancing (Al-K 147 + Swatch 116, 125-131)If the measure doesn’t fall within the scope : It was legally obtained / If the
measure does fall within the scope : Check if the fair as a whole remains fair
nonetheless for the purpose of art. 6 ECHR (Jalloh (§107)) :

– necessary in a democratic society

     – proportionality (Buck 44-45)

     – subsidiarity

– grounds for application (Buzadji 87-88, 101-102)

     – legal basis

     – persistence of r.s. (Buzadji 88)

        – other grounds? special dili?

     – public interest grounds  (Buzadji 88)

     – alternative means (Buz 87)    

If waive: Salduz 59

The rights:

DE: 136(1) +137

NL: 28+29(2)

UK: 6.1 PACE 2016+ s. 58 PACE 1984

check fairness of the trial (Jalloh 117)

– 5 factors

– if one missing it could still be okay (Schatschachwili 113+116)

– absent witness (Ellis &others 74-75)

If the measure is considered as torture – There is an automatic violation
of the right to a fair trial under art. 6 ECHR
Check the fairness of the proceedings as a whole
(Nitulescu (§46)/Prade (§§34-41))
a. Was the defendant given an opportunity to challenge the evidence?
b. Was the evidence strong and reliable?
c. Was the public interest more endangered than the interests of the
Plea bargainFull Code TestThreshold testCrime Control ModelDue process modelPrinciples of fair trial

333Principle of legality (DE)

The opportunity/expediency principle (ENG/NL)

Natsvililish 89

– accepted in full awareness of the consequences

– bargain is fair with sufficient judicial review

Evidential stage:

1) can EV be used in court?

2) reliable?

3) credible

Public int stage:

1) serious

2) culpability

3) circumstances and cons

4) minor or not

5) impact on community

6) prosecution prop?

7) requirement to protect

1) reasonable suspicion

2) more evidence with realistic prospect of conviction

– prosecution of crime and security important

-legitimacy from efficiency

-fast, informal uniform

– factual presumption of guilt

– protect individual rights and freedom

– efficiency = reliability

– reabilitate

– no shortcuts

– normative presumption of innocence 

-right to public trial

-right to defence

-right to legal assistance

-right to silence


-fair investigations


  • No prosecutorial discretion

    • Need reasonable suspicion

  • If there is sufficient evidence → compulsary prosecution

  • Equality before the law

  • No compulsory prosecution

  • High level of prosecutorial discretion

  • Not only sufficient evidence → also public interest (for e.g. rehabilitation instead, minor crimes)

→ prevention of injustice (too harsh maybe)

  • This allows for the individualization of criminal justice 

  • Prevents delay in the court and prison system (cases too minor so it goes faster)

plea bargain countries 
  • NL → legal theory is that the ascertainment of guilt is for public officials to accomplish, and the court must review an check the dossier.

    • In practice, however, there are various possibilities of bargaining, and more summary procedures for those who do not contest their guilt.

  • GR → there is no guilty plea, but there are forms of ‘plea bargain’ in which a defendant may confess to the judge in order to gain a reduction in the sentence.

  • E&W → guilty plea constitutes waiver by the defendant of the right to a trial and to put the prosecution to proof.

    • The discount ranges from 1/3 for a guilty plea at the earliest reasonable opportunity, to 1/10 for a change of plea at the door of the court.

    • The law provides a strong incentive to plead guilty.