Scholarly record

THE NECESSITY TO EXPAND THE CASES OF MANDATORY DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN LATVIA

V. Platpirs

Abstract

In accordance with Section 88 of the Latvian Criminal Procedure Law, a person who has the right to defence is entitled to refuse a defence counsel. Such refusal shall be allowed only on the basis of the initiative of the person himself or herself; whereas if a person who has the right to defence has expressed a request regarding the participation of a defence counsel, the refusal of a defence counsel may take place only in the presence of the defence counsel. The problem is related to the fact that the police provides the detained and the suspect with a paper that contains the person’s rights in writing (the document includes the aforementioned right to defence), but in fact, a defence counsel is only provided upon the person’s request. The aim of the work is to substantiate that to fully ensure the human rights of the person who has the right to defence in the criminal procedure, the normative legislation needs to be amended to provide that at least in case of a planned detainment of a personthe refusal of a defence counsel may take place only in the presence of the defence counsel, providing a state-provided defence counsel if required. The investigator will not be able to provide the person with an objective and probably quality explanation, from the point of view of defence, of their rights and to provide at least a minimal, but important for defence, and quality consultation.The mechanism proposed would not allow the investigator to mislead or influence the person who has the right to defence, performing the procedural activity without the defence counsel. Legally the mechanism can be worked into the Criminal Procedure Law, expanding the range of mandatory defence cases, but providing for the person the opportunity to refuse a defence counsel after a consultation with the defence counsel.

Publication details

Back to publication list