ABSTRACT
It is well established internationally that children, as well as individuals with intellectual disabilities, face particular challenges in negotiating the forensic formalities adopted by police at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. Owing to limitations in cognitive and linguistic development, the testimonial accuracy of police-elicited accounts yielded from these individuals has been found to attract a heightened risk of narrative bias which can vary depending upon the types of questions asked, the status of the person asking them and the formality of the arena in which the interrogation takes place. For persons suspected of crime, the distortive impact of these psychological vulnerabilities can result in serious punitive consequences. In recognition of the unique challenges facing vulnerable suspects in police custody across Europe, a distinct line of Strasbourg jurisprudence has emerged in recent years that emphasises the need for all states to facilitate meaningful access to a lawyer during a suspect’s period of detainment. Most recently, this line of inculpatory logic found expression in the Chambers of Strasbourg in Doyle v Ireland (51979/17), where – although refusing to overrule the decision of Ireland’s Supreme Court – the European Court of Human Rights was openly critical of the Supreme Court’s failure to recognise Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporating a suspect’s right to have a lawyer physically present during a police interview. Against the backdrop of such emergent juridical activism, this chapter calibrates the right to reasonable access to a lawyer in Ireland, with a particular emphasis on the position of vulnerable suspects of crime.
