Statement concerning the failure of a prosecutor to inform a public defence counsel that the suspect had been detained

Summary of the decision: A person arrested on suspicion of committing an offence was interrogated prior to the prosecutor’s decision on whether they should be detained. A public defence counsel had already been appointed for the suspect. Defence counsel was however not present for the interrogation. After the interrogation, the suspect was detained by order of the prosecutor. The prosecutor did not inform defence counsel until after the application for a detention order was dealt with.

According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, conducting the interrogation without defence counsel was in conflict with the suspect’s right of defence. While there is no statutory provision in this regard, in the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman the prosecutor should have ensured that defence counsel was informed that the suspect had been detained. As a consequence of the prosecutor’s action, the suspect was deprived of liberty for over 48 hours without the knowledge of their defence counsel. This can be considered to have restricted the suspect’s possibility to prepare their defence. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of how the prosecutor dealt with the situation.