Ibrahim v. United Kingdom

Two weeks after the London public-transit bombings in 2005, Muktar Said Ibrahim and two other men (collectively, the attempted bombers) (plaintiffs) detonated additional bombs in the London subway system and on a bus. The bombs failed to explode. The attempted bombers were taken into custody, held, and questioned without access to legal representation. A fourth man (plaintiff), who had sheltered one of the three attempted bombers, was also interrogated without legal representation and without being informed of the right to remain silent. Authorities in the United Kingdom (UK) claimed that the detentions and interrogation without access to legal representation were justified because, in the aftermath of the attempted bombing, officials were unsure if an active terror threat still existed, and officials did not want a lawyer to facilitate communications with other potential accomplices who had yet to be apprehended. The three attempted bombers were eventually convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, and the fourth man was convicted of harboring the attempted bomber and failing to disclose information after the attempted bombing. The attempted bombers and the fourth man filed applications against the UK government (defendant) in the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the failure to timely provide access to legal representation violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention).