Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Crossing Legal Boundaries in Defence of the State

Edited by Aniceto Masferrer and Clive Walker

The initial responses to 9/11 engaged categorical questions about ‘war’, ‘terrorism’, and ‘crime’. Now the implementation of counter-terrorism law is infused with dichotomies – typically depicted as the struggle between security and human rights, but explored more exactingly in this book as traversing boundaries around the roles of lawyers, courts, and crimes; the relationships between police, military, and security agencies; and the interplay of international and national enforcement. The contributors to this book explore how developments in counter-terrorism have resulted in pressures to cross important ethical, legal and organizational boundaries. They identify new tensions and critique the often unwanted outcomes within common law, civil law, and international legal systems.

Chapter 10: The right of access to a lawyer in terrorist cases

Brice Dickson

Subjects: law - academic, criminal law and justice, human rights, terrorism and security law


In the mind of the average person, certainly in States that have long been democracies, it is highly likely that an assumption would be made that if someone is suspected of having committed a crime, and is questioned by the police about that crime, he or she should immediately be entitled to consult privately with a lawyer. It would be acknowledged that in practice not all suspects would insist upon such assistance, especially if they know that they are innocent of the alleged crime. However, most people would nevertheless accept that, as part and parcel of the rule of law, the help of a lawyer, if not waived on the basis of fully informed consent, should always be available as of right. Sadly, such an assumption would not reflect today’s legal reality in most if not all countries. The right of access to a lawyer, if it is guaranteed at all, can be subjected to restrictions if certain conditions are met. Moreover, those conditions tend to be easier to meet, or the restrictions tend to be more extensive, if the alleged criminal is suspected of having terrorist motives. The traditional justification for such restrictions is that a higher good is at stake than the right of the individual detainee. It could be the safety of the community, the interests of victims, or the effectiveness of the justice system. Defence lawyers, we are often reminded, owe a duty to their legal system and their profession as well as to their clients.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information