Lawyers and children: Is there a need for mandatory legal assistance in suspect interviews?

In 2016, Belgium introduced legislation mandating legal assistance for juvenile suspects. However, legal assistance can only serve as an effective procedural safeguard if it is provided appropriately. The current study examined how lawyers in Belgium fulfil this role in practice. Seventeen video-recorded police interviews of juvenile suspects were observed. The juveniles were aged between 12 and 17 years, and were suspected of various less serious, volume crimes. The findings of this study show that the ‘law in action’ does not always reflect the ‘law in the books’. The mere presence of a lawyer is insufficient: it is necessary for them to actively engage. Although police interviewers typically adopt an information-gathering approach, some interviews do require the lawyer’s intervention to protect the juvenile’s interests. Moreover, lawyers often restrict themselves to ‘legal’ assistance and offer limited (emotional) support. Because there is no ‘appropriate adult’ regime in Belgium, lawyers could take up this double role. The information-gathering approach also seems to enhance cooperation between lawyer and interviewer, resulting in a joint search for the truth in which neither adopts an antagonistic role when interviews are conducted properly.

Separate Grounds for the Obligatory Involvement of a Defense Counsel in a Criminal Case as a Procedural Safeguard

Despite the desire of the domestic legislator to get away from the elements of the accusatory bias in criminal proceedings, at the pre-trial stages the rights and possibilities of the prosecution are much wider than the defense. That is why the participation of the defense attorney in the pre-trial stages of the criminal proceedings is becoming more relevant and serves as a procedural guarantee both to ensure the adversarial process of the parties and to ensure the suspect (accused) the right to defense. The grounds for the mandatory participation of a defense counsel may also arise in judicial stages, where the principle of adversarial process of the parties should be ensured by providing equal procedural opportunities to the parties. The normative consolidation of the grounds for the mandatory participation of a defender is not entirely flawless, in connection with which, the author considers some of them through the prism of providing appropriate procedural guarantees to the person against whom criminal prosecution is carried out. As a result of the study of the grounds specified in paragraph 3.1, 5–8 part 1 of Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the author came to the conclusion that it is necessary to ensure the mandatory participation of counsel in pre-trial proceedings, as well as in the absence of the accused (defendant) in court proceedings.

Inappropriate Adults? A Review of the Current Use of Appropriate Adults in the Criminal Justice System

Appropriate Adults (AAs) are an important procedural safeguard for young and vulnerable people in a criminal investigation. The significance of their role is recognised by Parliament in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the appending Codes of Practice, most notably Code C. However, the ability of AAs as to perform their role is being impeded by a lack of clarity around their status and the rules that they are governed by. Often at the behest of lawyers, AAs are excluded from the conversations which lawyers have with their clients as a pragmatic solution to the uncertainty in the status of AAs. This means that AAs are rarely able to properly perform their vital role. Consequently, vulnerable people are not receiving the meaningful support they should receive. This represents a missed opportunity to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable people in the criminal justice system. When AAs are deployed effectively and appropriately, they can empower young or vulnerable suspects in an adversarial criminal justice system which, in turn, can help recalibrate the scales of justice to allow for a fairer outcome. This article will examine and critique the state of the current law, clarify the law on Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) and how that relates to Aas and propose a modest incremental extension to the principles of confidentiality to cover confidential discussions between AAs and young or vulnerable people in the criminal justice system.

Ochrona poufności komunikacji z prawnikiem w świetle europejskiego i krajowego prawa ochrony konkurencji

Legal Professional Privilege is a material procedural safeguard that ensures protection of communication between undertaking and its legal counsel in the competition law. It is essential to differentiate the rules governing European and Polish antitrust proceedings in order to guarantee undertakings the widest possible protection against the search of premises. In each case when the primary aim of administrative regulations is to penalize the entrepreneurs for illegal conduct, it should be assured that at least similar safeguards to these adopted in criminal proceedings are secured.

Enhancing Informed Consent for Physician Aid in Dying: Potential Role of Handout on Possible Benefits of Palliative Care

In the United States, physician aid in dying (PAD) is now legal in several states. However, neither a requirement for a palliative care (PC) consultation nor a defined education in PC exists for physicians participating in PAD or patients requesting assistance. Patients with advanced chronic and serious illness often experience complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual distress. PC focuses on relieving this distress and improving patient quality of life through early identification and intervention in all domains of suffering, including physical, psychological, social, and spiritual. Ideally, we would recommend a PC consult, but unfortunately, PC is not readily available or offered at this time to all those who might benefit from it. We present a case for providing an educational handout to patients who inquire about PAD. This handout explains the potential benefits of PC as an additional procedural safeguard to existing regulations. Such information would help to ensure the integrity of the informed consent process, enhance shared decision making, and improve patient comprehension of the options.

Derechos sociales y amparo constitucional

LABURPENA: Nahiz eta Espainiako Konstituzioak eskubide sozial sorta handia aitortu, bertako 53. artikuluaren jokoak oinarrizko eskubideak bermatzeko mekanismotik kanpo uzten ditu eskubide sozial horiek. Artikulu horrek zalantzan jartzen baitu eskubide sozial gehienen justiziabilitatea. Eta ez hori bakarrik; gainera, oinarrizko eskubideak Auzitegi Konstituzionalean bermatzeko espresuki eraturiko auzibidetik kanpo uzten ditu, hots, babes-errekurtsotik kanpo. Eskubide sozialen degradazio hori, ohikoa Zuzenbide Konparatuan, saihestu izan da, auzitegi nazional eta nazioarteko askotan, eskubideoi zeharkako babesa ematen dieten estrategien bitartez. Ildo horretan, gaurko azterlan honen xedea da babes-errekurtsoetan ezarritako jurisprudentzia konstituzionala analizatzea, ikusteko zer neurritaraino baliatu den Auzitegi Konstituzionala estrategia horietaz Konstituzioak aitortzen dituen eskubide sozial gehienak babes-errekurtsoek eskaintzen duten aterpetik kanpo uzteko joerari aurre egiteko. RESUMEN: A pesar de que la Constitución española reconoce un importante elenco de derechos sociales, el juego de su artículo 53 les excluye de los principales mecanismos de garantía de los derechos fundamentales. Este precepto no sólo pone en duda la justiciabilidad de la mayoría de los derechos sociales, sino que les excluye de la vía procesal específicamente pensada para garantizar los derechos fundamentales ante el Tribunal Constitucional: el recurso de amparo. Esta degradación de los derechos sociales, habitual en Derecho comparado, ha sido salvada por muchos tribunales nacionales e internacionales utilizando estrategias de protección indirecta de estos derechos. En esta línea, el objeto del presente trabajo es analizar la jurisprudencia constitucional sentada en recursos de amparo a fin de identificar en qué medida el Tribunal Constitucional ha hecho uso de esas estrategias para paliar la exclusión de la mayoría de los derechos sociales reconocidos en la Constitución de la protección que otorga el amparo. ABSTRACT: Although the Spanish Constitution recognizes a remarkable cast of social rights, its article 53 excludes these rights from the mechanisms built to guarantee the protection of constitutional rights. Article 53 brings into question the justiciability of most of the social rights recognized in the Spanish Constitution and deprives most of them from the protection granted by the recurso de amparo, the procedural safeguard specifically designed to protect fundamental rights in case of individual violations before the Spanish Constitutional Court. However, this situation is not so atipical as many other national and international courts face this sort of limits by developing a creative case law in order to protect social rights even when the national constitution or the international treaty they interpretate do not expressly recognize these rights. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to analyse the Spanish Constitutional Court’s case law as to determine to what extent it has made use of the indirect strategies to ensure the justiciability of social rights that other courts have already used.