Article 7(1) does not make the same distinction between the judicial phase and the initial phase, and should be read as requiring access to the case file at the stage of initial questioning:     Article 7(1) refers to a person being ‘arrested or detained’, ‘at any stage in criminal proceedings’. There appears to be a deliberate emphasis upon covering the whole procedure relating to deprivation of liberty, which includes initial arrest. Article 7(1) identifies the documents which need to be made available: those which are necessary for challenging that arrest or detention effectively. In the case of an initial arrest, this can only refer to the evidence deemed to constitute lawful grounds for interference with the person’s liberty (i.e. reasonable suspicion of an offence). Whilst it is true that Recital 30 suggests the necessary documents must be made available at the latest upon the judicial review of detention, this is simply the reflection of an existing nonderogable minimum standard established by the ECHR under Article 5(4). In fact, the Directive foresees access to such documents earlier, as shown by the expression ‘at the latest’. In the EU law tradition, respect for the rights of the defence as protected by Article 48 of the Charter is paramount in the adoption of decisions adversely affecting an individual. The rights of defence include the right to be heard, which requires access to the case file, as arises in the defence rights case-law of the CJEU. The General Court of the EU has stated: ‘The principle of respect for the rights of the defence requires, first, that the entity concerned must be informed of the evidence adduced against it to justify the measure adversely affecting it. Secondly, it must be afforded the opportunity effectively to make known its view on that evidence (…) Consequently (…) the evidence adduced against that entity should be disclosed to it either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of the measure concerned’.59   Whilst the context is different (these cases concern the adoption of restrictive measures by EU Institutions) this approach shows that from the perspective of the Charter, the rights of defence, including the right to be heard, are safeguarded during the administrative phase, prior to subsequent judicial review. The administrative authority, required to act lawfully, is supposed to hear the views of the affected person in relation to the substantive grounds for the decision. This should apply a fortiori when the person is deprived of their liberty. The arrested person is entitled to be informed of the reasons for his arrest under Article 6(2), and the evidence substantiating those reasons under Article 7(1). This enables the person, though their lawyer, to form a view as to the legality of the arrest and decide whether to make their views known or exercise the right to silence and challenge the arrest by judicial review. The fact that this combination of reasons and materials does not (yet) arise clearly in ECtHR case-law is not determinative, since the Directive is not limited by the latter and is intended to build upon it. These are just some ideas, and you are obviously free to fashion your own arguments. Once you are happy that you have your basis for claiming a right of access to the case file at the police station, the process of invoking the right is fairly straightforward: 59 Case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council ECLI:EU:T:2013:39, paragraph 53. 37