evaluate the strength of the case at that point and the potential for a more serious accusation to be made subsequently. If you do not get access, this will strengthen your case when relying on the Directive later.  Ensure that your requests, including your references to the Directive, are recorded in police protocols / records of proceedings. Ask for any refusal to provide such information to be recorded too, together with the reasons given. 3. Challenging the violation a. Encourage pre-trial detention instances to take action The likely immediate repercussion of a failure to specify detail in the allegations, in particular, is that you will be deprived of the opportunity to have a serious discussion about the strength of the case before a pre-trial detention instance. Fair Trials believes that it is clear from the text of the Directive that it is intending to provide an arrested person with the opportunity for an effective judicial review of detention (Article 6(1) provides the reasons for arrest, in detail, and Article 7(1) provides access to the documents necessary for challenging the lawfulness of detention). You should therefore encourage the pre-trial detention court to protect your clients’ rights under Article 6 of the Charter (right to liberty) by ensuring sufficient information is provided.  Demand that the pre-trial detention court compel the prosecution to provide more information, if insufficient detail has been provided so far.  Argue: the Directive specifically seeks to ensure respect for the right to liberty protected by Article 6 of the Charter by placing the suspect in possession of sufficient information and case materials to challenge his arrest / detention. It necessarily falls to the pre-trial detention instance to ensure observance of these rights by compelling the investigative / prosecutorial authority to provide more detail or, in default, releasing the suspect. b. Invoke the Directive and seek a remedy for the inadequate notification Assume that you are now before your forum for challenging pre-trial violations (e.g. trial-stage arguments about the validity of procedural acts). You may be dealing with an offence which is now more serious than the one originally charged. The earlier statements made by the suspect are in the record and these may be objectionable to you as they were essentially obtained without full notice of the seriousness of the charge, and possibly as a result of a deliberate tactic of the pre-trial instance to induce a confession. We suggest:  Argue: Article 6(1) requires the provision of information ‘in such detail as is necessary to safeguard the fairness of proceedings and ensure the effective exercise of the rights of defence’ and requires the provision of the most extensive information available at the time of questioning.  The ‘effective exercise of the rights of defence’ at trial may be prejudiced by the failure to provide more detailed information earlier in the proceedings, e.g. by circumventing procedural protections available for more serious offences, inducing cooperation on the basis of a false idea as to the seriousness of the 30