Drug crime lawyer in Kyiv 24/7: why the first hour matters more than the first day in court

Being detained on suspicion of a drug-related offence almost never happens at a convenient time. It is usually at night, on weekends, or sometimes on a public holiday — a moment when a person is least prepared to make decisions, while law enforcement officers are most interested in having those decisions made quickly and without witnesses.

That is why the formula “lawyer 24/7” is not a marketing slogan, but a reflection of how the criminal process actually works: the first hours after detention shape the course of the case more than any court hearing that will take place months later.

The “golden hour” of criminal proceedings.
In defence practice there is an unwritten rule: what happens in the first 2–3 hours after detention is often more important than all the subsequent months of investigation. It is during this period that:

• officers may try to question the person “informally”, even before an official detention record is made;
• they suggest “just explaining the situation”, promising that this will be to the person’s benefit;
• the first statements are recorded, which are then very difficult to withdraw in court;
• it is decided whether a request for a lawyer will be made at all, or whether the person will “voluntarily waive” this right under the pressure of the moment.

Every mistake made during this hour is then corrected for years on appeal — and not always successfully.

What does the European Court of Human Rights say about this?
The right to a lawyer from the first minute of detention is not a Ukrainian peculiarity, but a standard established back in 2008 in an ECtHR judgment in a case against Turkey. The Court set out a principle that later became known as the “golden rule” of European criminal procedure: restricting access to a defence lawyer at the initial stages of an investigation is, in itself, capable of rendering the subsequent trial unfair — even if all later procedural steps appear flawless on paper.

The logic is simple: statements obtained without a lawyer in the first hours then run through the entire case as evidence, and even if the person later retracts them, it is psychologically difficult for the court to completely disregard them.

And what does the Supreme Court of Ukraine say?
Ukrainian case-law has directly adopted this logic. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared inadmissible evidence obtained as a result of questioning or “conversations” with a detained person before they were actually granted access to a defence lawyer — regardless of whether such communication was formally called an interrogation or took place in the form of “explanations”. For the Court, the wording of the record is secondary; what matters first is whether the person had a real opportunity to remain silent and consult a lawyer before they started speaking.

In practice this means: if a lawyer appears not on the first day of the investigation, but only several hours after detention, they often find that the key evidence has already been “fixed” — and they are working not proactively, but trying to repair the damage.

Why is round-the-clock availability a strategy rather than a service? Because it is not about convenience.
When a lawyer is available 24/7, it changes the very dynamics of detention:

• the person immediately receives the right to remain silent and legal advice instead of “negotiating” with investigators one-on-one;
• the moment of actual detention is recorded, which is critical if the real time does not match the time stated in the official record;
• the lawfulness of the personal search and seizure of substances is monitored — procedural violations are most frequent at this stage;
• motions are filed at a stage when it is easier to submit them than later to challenge investigative inactivity.

In short: round-the-clock defence is not about comfort; it is about making sure the “golden hour” works for the client, not against them.

Contact WINNER — we will help assess the situation, define the legal position, and choose the best defence strategy for your specific case.

Author: Nazar Al-Mzirawi, attorney at law, Law Firm “WINNER”.