Alexander Shadrin, a partner at BARRISTERS, JSC, explained how to communicate with a defendant during a court hearing

Alexander Shadrin, a partner at BARRISTERS Law Firm, shared tips on effective communication with a detained client during a court hearing with the audience at Legal High School. He noted that in criminal cases—especially those involving serious crimes or where the suspect was a fugitive—the defendant is held in custody, which imposes certain limitations on the attorney’s work. Under such circumstances, the defense attorney becomes the client’s sole legal link to the outside world. The law provides for unrestricted communication between the attorney and the client, except when the attorney is engaged in investigative or procedural activities. As Oleksandr Shadrin noted, it is essential to explain the client’s procedural rights so that he or she insists on the lawyer’s presence during such investigative or procedural actions.

Confidential communication with the client is of great importance, although it is usually hindered by the presence of guards or investigative officers who obstruct the transfer of documents or attempt to learn their contents. Therefore, it is important to ensure that communication with the client takes place without the presence of outsiders.

According to the lecturer, the attorney’s seat in the courtroom is often located in front of a glass partition where the defendant is held, which prevents effective communication with the defendant during the hearing. A motion to release the defendant from the glass partition or cage usually resolves this issue.

Oleksandr Shadrin believes that restrictions on the defendant’s rights must be challenged by filing motions to remedy human rights violations; in particular, this applies to the non-use of metal cages, handcuffs, or glass booths.

In this regard, the lecturer cited decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of “Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia” (non-use of a metal cage), “Gorodnichev v. Russia” (non-use of handcuffs), “Alekhin v. Russia,” and “Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia” (non-use of a glass booth).

He noted that such motions lead the judge to accept the defense’s arguments, and the defendant’s presence outside the cage (or glass booth) indicates that he is not attempting to escape, which influences the modification of the preventive measure and the sentencing.

According to the lecturer, a universal means of countering procedural violations is filing a criminal complaint under Article 397 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (interference with the activities of a defense attorney or a person’s representative).

The lecturer illustrated these points with examples from his own legal practice and provided Legal High School attendees with practical advice on establishing productive communication with the defendant. In his view, a lawyer’s proactive stance, along with knowledge of and application of ECHR case law, makes it possible to avoid most violations of the rights of the defendant and the defense attorney.