Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom concerned the application of a statutory scheme in the UK which grants police officers powers to conduct a ‘safety interview’, that is, questioning in the absence of a lawyer which is justified by urgent risks to the public. In the aftermath of attempted bombings in London, police used these powers to question several suspects to establish whether there were other unexploded bombs hidden in the underground metro system. The suspects told lies to mislead the police. When the suspects later asserted that their bombs had never been intended to explode, it was pointed out that had this been true, they would have mentioned the fact at the time they were questioned. It was alleged that the use of their statements given in the absence of lawyers infringed Article 6. The Chamber found that ‘compelling reasons’ had indeed existed for restricting the right. It further found that the admission of the evidence did not lead to a breach of Article 6, as the system was carefully regulated; the evidence was obtained in fair circumstances; there were sufficient procedural safeguards including directions given to the jury; and there was other evidence to support the finding of guilt. At the time of writing, Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom is before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. Fair Trials intervened in the case to make arguments broadly consistent with those supplied here. We would however stress that, whatever is found by the ECtHR, this does not mean the Directive cannot provide greater protection than the ECHR. C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE Similar open issues arise under the Directive: it is clear that the latter permits questioning to proceed in the absence of a lawyer, but leaves open the question whether evidence obtained in such circumstances may be used for a conviction. Article 3(5) and 3(6) provides: 5. In exceptional circumstances and only at the pre-trial stage, Member States may temporarily derogate from the application of point (c) of paragraph 2 where the geographical remoteness of a suspect or accused person makes it impossible to ensure the right of access to a lawyer without undue delay after deprivation of liberty. 6. In exceptional circumstances and only at the pre-trial stage, Member States may temporarily derogate from the application of the rights provided for in paragraph 3 to the extent justified in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, on the basis of one of the following compelling reasons: (a) where there is an urgent need to avert serious adverse consequences for the life, liberty or physical integrity of a person; (b) where immediate action by the investigating authorities is imperative to prevent substantial jeopardy to criminal proceedings. The provision is supplemented by Article 8, entitled ‘general conditions for applying temporary derogations’, which further provides: 1. Any temporary derogation under Article 3(5) or (6) or under Article 5(3) shall 30