Summary Case Law: Plonka v. Poland

Summary of the Case Law Plonka v. Poland (Week 1), Comparative Criminal Law (2016/2017)

Plonka v. Poland, ECtHR 31 March 2009, appl. No. 20310.02

Introduction

The Plonka case is a decision made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The case was decided in March 2009 and it concerns interrogation by the police. The applicant claims that there has been a breach of article 6(3)(c) of the Convention.

Facts

In the Plonka case, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide (par. 6). She was first interviewed by a police officer. The day after she was arrested she was charged with murdering. One day later, she was questioned by the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor. The applicant stated that she had been having alcohol problems for the past 20 years. At the night of the killing, she drank too much and didn’t remember much of what happened. She confessed killing her former work colleague, but hadn’t meant to kill him. He had made her very angry, and she had stabbed him with scissors while she was drunk.

The applicant was not consisted by a lawyer during her police interrogation (par. 7). She however signed a form that she had been informed of her rights, including the right of access to a lawyer. The applicant was held criminally responsible for the killing of the victim (par. 8). She was indicted with charges of murder (par. 11).

Throughout the trial the applicant maintained that she suffered from alcoholism. She retracted her confession made during police custody, alleging that she had been questioned under duress and forced by the police officers to make self-incriminating statements (par. 12). The applicant got convicted, based on the applicant’s statements made during the initial phase of the investigation and on evidence given by several witnesses (par. 14). The lawyer of the applicant stated that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to defend herself in view of the deficiencies in the preliminary investigation (par. 15).

The arguments

The applicant complained that her right to a fair trial had been breached as she had not had legal aid at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings against her (article 6(3)(c) Convention). The Government contested this, because she had not availed herself of the possibility to request legal assistance during her interview with the police. The applicant had been informed of her rights and despite that she had neither refused to testify nor asked for a lawyer to be appointed (par. 23).

The applicant disagreed: She claimed that she had not been properly informed about the possibility to obtain a lawyer’s assistance during questioning (par. 24).

The Court’s assessment

The Court states in par. 32 that Article 6(3)(c) Convention may be relevant at the stage of the preliminary investigation in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions. Although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (par. 33). The Convention is designed to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (par. 33).

For the right to be practical and effective it is required that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. Rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (par. 35).

Waiver

The applicant in the case did not request to be assisted by a lawyer. However, there is no indication that the applicant expressly waived her right to be represented by that lawyer during her questioning (par. 36). A waiver of Article 6 must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (par. 37). In the circumstances of the present case, the assertion in the form of stating her rights that the applicant had been reminded of her right to remain silent or to be assisted by a lawyer cannot be considered reliable. There was no waiver.

In this connection, the alcoholism of the applicant is important. She admitted this during the first police interrogation, and confessed to having drunk a substantial amount of alcohol the day before her arrest. These circumstances clearly suggest that the applicant was in a vulnerable position at the time of the interview, and that the authorities should have taken this into account during questioning and in particular when apprising of her right to be assisted by a lawyer (par. 38).

Decision

The Court considers that in the present case the applicant was undoubtedly directly affected by the lack of access to a lawyer during her questioning by the police. Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer or the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during the police custody (par. 41). This leads to a breach of Article 6(3)(c) Convention.