Detention Without Prior Judicial Authorisation and the Right to Counsel
On 3 March at 22:40 police officers detained Ivan Petrov near a warehouse in Plovdiv on suspicion of theft of copper cable worth 4,200 BGN. The record of detention states only 'grounds under Art. 72(1) ZMVR' without further particulars. Petrov was placed in a police detention room. At 09:15 the next morning he was brought before a prosecutor who ordered him held for 72 hours under the ZMVR. Petrov's lawyer appeared at the police station at 08:00 on 4 March and was told no meeting was possible because 'the investigator had not yet been assigned'. Petrov was not informed of the right to a lawyer until 09:00. He made an incriminating statement at 07:30 without counsel. On 5 March he was charged and a measure of remand 'detention in custody' was sought.
1. Assess the lawfulness of the initial 22:40 detention and the subsequent 72-hour prosecutor's order. Which authority, if any, must review the deprivation of liberty and within what time?
Read the worked answer
Initial police detention. Detention by an administrative/police authority is permissible only on statutory grounds that are individually stated. A bare citation of Art. 72(1) ZMVR does not individualise the grounds, so the record is defective and the detention is arbitrary within the meaning of Art. 5(1) ECHR. The measure must be necessary and proportionate; theft of cable worth 4,200 BGN, absent risk of absconding or reoffending, does not by itself justify deprivation of liberty.
Prosecutor's 72-hour order. Under Bulgarian law the prosecutor may order detention for up to 72 hours, but this is a deprivation of liberty that requires prompt judicial review. 'Prompt' under Art. 5(3) ECHR means within days, ordinarily no more than a few; a 72-hour block followed by a court application on 5 March is at the outer edge. The court must examine the substantive grounds, not merely the form.
Who reviews. Only a court (rayonen sad) can authorise continued detention; the prosecutor cannot. The court must hear the detained person and counsel, and must give reasons addressing flight risk, reoffending and interference with evidence. If the court finds the initial detention arbitrary, it must order release and may award compensation under ZODOV.
Conclusion. The 22:40 detention is unlawful for lack of individualised grounds; the 72-hour order stands or falls with judicial review, which must be conducted without delay and on the merits.
2. Petrov's 07:30 statement was made without counsel after he was allegedly not informed of his right to a lawyer. How should the court treat that statement, and what is the consequence of the refusal to let counsel meet him at 08:00?
Read the worked answer
Right to counsel. Under Art. 5(2) ECHR and the ZMVR/GPK framework, a detained person must be informed promptly of the right to a lawyer and must be able to exercise it. Informing him only at 09:00, after a statement was taken at 07:30, defeats the purpose of the right.
Access to a lawyer before interrogation. The right of access to counsel arises from the moment of deprivation of liberty. Refusing a meeting at 08:00 on the ground that 'the investigator had not been assigned' is not a lawful basis; the right does not depend on the stage of the investigation. Restricting access is permissible only for compelling reasons that are recorded and reviewed.
Treatment of the statement. A confession obtained in breach of the right to counsel is not automatically excluded, but the court must weigh the breach. Where the person was not informed and counsel was actively refused, the statement should be excluded as obtained in violation of Art. 5 and the fair-trial guarantee; it cannot found a conviction. The court should record the breach and consider whether the remaining evidence is independent.
Consequence. The breach supports a finding of procedural irregularity, possible disciplinary and compensation consequences, and, if the statement was the sole basis for the charge, acquittal. The court should also assess whether the deprivation of liberty was lawful at all, since an unlawful detention taints evidence obtained during it.