Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
Say you've t
tted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.
Your example here is precisely why blanket advice of no comment is wrong. If you've been hit first and responded it's opening up the defence of self defence. Without this explanation it may be there's a strong prima facie against you for assault and sufficient evidence to proceed to summons, passing the prosecution threshold tests. The court would likely be entitled to draw a negative inference by your failure to mention self defence at interview. Whereas if you establish your defence at interview, it makes it less likely the Police will charge, as the prospect of success at trial has significantly reduced.tted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.Tannedbaldhead said:
"Ask for proof.
Go from there"
Try and find out what they know. If they have you cold it's best to confess, explain, cry and throw yourself at the mercy of the investigating officer then court. It can work
Go from there"
Try and find out what they know. If they have you cold it's best to confess, explain, cry and throw yourself at the mercy of the investigating officer then court. It can work
Tannedbaldhead said:
No comment can be your worst enemy
Or your best friend. I've had clients admit various offences to me. Advised to no comment. Result - no further action. It's important to get the strategy right from the start. There are basically three responses in the police station:
1. Admit;
2. Deny; or
3. No comment.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Run through this with me and explain where I'm going wrong.
"Ask him what he wants."
If your are totally clueless you will want to know why the police would like a chat. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, likelyhood of the offence being witnessed and the credibility of the witnesses one can judge whether you should attend with a Lawyer or not and how to conduct yourself in the interview.
"Tell him you don't know what he's talking about".
Depends on whether your line of defence is complete denial rather than "I was there but"
"Admit nothing
Deny everything"
Surely to God that's a given. Say you've ttted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.
You'd be surprised what amount of evidence can be fronted. I was once up against an on duty police witness. He hadn't entered any details of my alledged "incident" in his note-book. Although he recognised an identical person by means by a set of collapsable crutches in his rucksack (I was recovering from a badly broken leg at the time and also rode with collapsable crutches in a rucksack)and the fact I was in the same jacket as the suspect he couldn't say what day the incident (at the time of my questioning a few weeks old) took place. He also couldn't have seen the guilty party's face. Now had I been guilty of the offence and fessed up I'd have been for the high jump.
"Ask for proof.
Go from there"
Try and find out what they know. If they have you cold it's best to confess, explain, cry and throw yourself at the mercy of the investigating officer then court. It can work
Now when you say it's not good advice are you talking about the best interest of the suspect being the police getting to the bottom of everything or the suspect walking out on the station charge free?
Allegictocheddar has pretty much summed it up. Please dont be another one who thinks that blanket no comment, or denying everything flat out is necessarily the best option."Ask him what he wants."
If your are totally clueless you will want to know why the police would like a chat. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, likelyhood of the offence being witnessed and the credibility of the witnesses one can judge whether you should attend with a Lawyer or not and how to conduct yourself in the interview.
"Tell him you don't know what he's talking about".
Depends on whether your line of defence is complete denial rather than "I was there but"
"Admit nothing
Deny everything"
Surely to God that's a given. Say you've t
tted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.You'd be surprised what amount of evidence can be fronted. I was once up against an on duty police witness. He hadn't entered any details of my alledged "incident" in his note-book. Although he recognised an identical person by means by a set of collapsable crutches in his rucksack (I was recovering from a badly broken leg at the time and also rode with collapsable crutches in a rucksack)and the fact I was in the same jacket as the suspect he couldn't say what day the incident (at the time of my questioning a few weeks old) took place. He also couldn't have seen the guilty party's face. Now had I been guilty of the offence and fessed up I'd have been for the high jump.
"Ask for proof.
Go from there"
Try and find out what they know. If they have you cold it's best to confess, explain, cry and throw yourself at the mercy of the investigating officer then court. It can work
Now when you say it's not good advice are you talking about the best interest of the suspect being the police getting to the bottom of everything or the suspect walking out on the station charge free?
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 26th December 18:12
Get legal advice.
Get disclosure.
Answer questions as per your briefs advice.
Don't try and be clever.
I'm a bit late to this thread, but one thing I will state clearly...
Never, never, EVER trust the police.
They are NOT your friends, no matter how much they claim to be.
They are out to get a conviction, and if that means stitching you up, they WILL do it.
In situations such as the one in this thread, say NOTHING to the police, do NOT agree to attend "for a chat", it definitely IS something to worry about or they would not be calling you. If they want to take it further they'll need to come and arrest you. By inviting you in "for a chat" they are hoping you will inadvertently incriminate yourself and you'll find yourself in court with no defence..
If they DO turn up to arrest you, say NOTHING (other than confirming your name and address) without a solicitor present. You need to confirm your name and address otherwise they'll have you under section 28 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act.
Any coppers in this thread telling you it's nothing to worry about are simply backing up their colleagues - do NOT trust them! Don't say you weren't warned.
Never, never, EVER trust the police.
They are NOT your friends, no matter how much they claim to be.
They are out to get a conviction, and if that means stitching you up, they WILL do it.
In situations such as the one in this thread, say NOTHING to the police, do NOT agree to attend "for a chat", it definitely IS something to worry about or they would not be calling you. If they want to take it further they'll need to come and arrest you. By inviting you in "for a chat" they are hoping you will inadvertently incriminate yourself and you'll find yourself in court with no defence..
If they DO turn up to arrest you, say NOTHING (other than confirming your name and address) without a solicitor present. You need to confirm your name and address otherwise they'll have you under section 28 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act.
Any coppers in this thread telling you it's nothing to worry about are simply backing up their colleagues - do NOT trust them! Don't say you weren't warned.
zarjaz1991 said:
They are out to get a conviction, and if that means stitching you up, they WILL do it.
No they aren't and no they won't. PLEASEDELETE said:
If it is potentially a criminal matter he will almost certainly advise you to offer 'no comment' to any and every question.
"Almost certainly" 
zarjaz1991 said:
Any coppers in this thread telling you it's nothing to worry about are simply backing up their colleagues - do NOT trust them! Don't say you weren't warned.
I think every officer who has contributed to this thread have all suggested obtaining legal advice. zarjaz1991 said:
I'm a bit late to this thread, but one thing I will state clearly...
Never, never, EVER trust the police.
They are NOT your friends, no matter how much they claim to be.
They are out to get a conviction, and if that means stitching you up, they WILL do it.
In situations such as the one in this thread, say NOTHING to the police, do NOT agree to attend "for a chat", it definitely IS something to worry about or they would not be calling you. If they want to take it further they'll need to come and arrest you. By inviting you in "for a chat" they are hoping you will inadvertently incriminate yourself and you'll find yourself in court with no defence..
If they DO turn up to arrest you, say NOTHING (other than confirming your name and address) without a solicitor present. You need to confirm your name and address otherwise they'll have you under section 28 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act.
Any coppers in this thread telling you it's nothing to worry about are simply backing up their colleagues - do NOT trust them! Don't say you weren't warned.
Yawn.Never, never, EVER trust the police.
They are NOT your friends, no matter how much they claim to be.
They are out to get a conviction, and if that means stitching you up, they WILL do it.
In situations such as the one in this thread, say NOTHING to the police, do NOT agree to attend "for a chat", it definitely IS something to worry about or they would not be calling you. If they want to take it further they'll need to come and arrest you. By inviting you in "for a chat" they are hoping you will inadvertently incriminate yourself and you'll find yourself in court with no defence..
If they DO turn up to arrest you, say NOTHING (other than confirming your name and address) without a solicitor present. You need to confirm your name and address otherwise they'll have you under section 28 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act.
Any coppers in this thread telling you it's nothing to worry about are simply backing up their colleagues - do NOT trust them! Don't say you weren't warned.
allergictocheese said:
Your example here is precisely why blanket advice of no comment is wrong. If you've been hit first and responded it's opening up the defence of self defence. Without this explanation it may be there's a strong prima facie against you for assault and sufficient evidence to proceed to summons, passing the prosecution threshold tests. The court would likely be entitled to draw a negative inference by your failure to mention self defence at interview. Whereas if you establish your defence at interview, it makes it less likely the Police will charge, as the prospect of success at trial has significantly reduced.
Are you a lawyer?zarjaz1991 said:
JonRB said:
... and clearly haven't read any of it either.
I've read it all. My advice to anyone in any dealings with the police stands."Do not trust the police. They are NOT your friends".
Fair enough. Coppers ain't your mate but they're not that ominous. They're just guys doing their job. An element of that job is that if they feel a crime has been commited their response is to investigate, gather evidence and present that evidence to the procurator fiscal or CPS.
If you've done nought then very rarely have you got ought to worry about and if you've done ought you either get a lawyer to act in your interests or if you have a bit of nous about you act without legal advice and as the situation dictates you lie or say nothing in the hope of getting away with your crime or fess up in the hope of mitigating circumstances either getting you off thanks to the officer's disgretion or reduced consquences should the matter go to court.
Quick update, sorry for the delay.
Went down to the station, when I got there the PC I'd been talking to said he'd decided to deal with it in a different way (i.e. no interview) & I've been given an S59(?) the driving ASBO as I understand it.
Without going into pages of details, the 'incident' was as I thought (bottom of page 3) except a couple of, well there's no other way of putting it, blatant lies .
I'm not criticising the PC I saw in any way, he was a nice bloke but the first sentence he said was there was a car at the back of the parade (group of people walking in the road) with it's hazards on that I went past. This car did not exist & when I told him that he said it may have been someone walking at the back of the group slowing cars down...bit of a difference.
Anyway, that was the main thing I did 'wrong', over-taking the non-existent car, but I also scared two little girls as I went along at walking pace in my terrifying mobile death machine. Funnily enough I don't even remember seeing any kids but if they were there & it is true that they were scared of an idling car then I'm the least of their worries I'd imagine.
Asked the PC is that was it, he said yes. No complaints about speed etc, just that it was 'inconsiderate driving'.
Feel slightly hard done by to say the least. Presume someone has most likely got a problem with me & I'll only have to use the car at a time that offends them & they'll be on the phone again & I'll be in trouble. Immediate angry thoughts were of frozen sausages etc but I've just got to take it.
Cheers. (& thanks for the advice earlier in the thread)
Went down to the station, when I got there the PC I'd been talking to said he'd decided to deal with it in a different way (i.e. no interview) & I've been given an S59(?) the driving ASBO as I understand it.
Without going into pages of details, the 'incident' was as I thought (bottom of page 3) except a couple of, well there's no other way of putting it, blatant lies .
I'm not criticising the PC I saw in any way, he was a nice bloke but the first sentence he said was there was a car at the back of the parade (group of people walking in the road) with it's hazards on that I went past. This car did not exist & when I told him that he said it may have been someone walking at the back of the group slowing cars down...bit of a difference.
Anyway, that was the main thing I did 'wrong', over-taking the non-existent car, but I also scared two little girls as I went along at walking pace in my terrifying mobile death machine. Funnily enough I don't even remember seeing any kids but if they were there & it is true that they were scared of an idling car then I'm the least of their worries I'd imagine.
Asked the PC is that was it, he said yes. No complaints about speed etc, just that it was 'inconsiderate driving'.
Feel slightly hard done by to say the least. Presume someone has most likely got a problem with me & I'll only have to use the car at a time that offends them & they'll be on the phone again & I'll be in trouble. Immediate angry thoughts were of frozen sausages etc but I've just got to take it.
Cheers. (& thanks for the advice earlier in the thread)
Centurion07 said:
Well would you look at that; OP has been well and truly stitched up, despite some posters on here saying there's nothing to worry about.
All dependant on OP telling us the whole truth of course.
Or there are some miserable walker types who have all given a version of events to the police and there is more evidence supporting their account than the OP's.All dependant on OP telling us the whole truth of course.
Sheepshanks said:
Would it have made any difference if the cop had already decided that's what he was going to do? You can't refuse an S59 and you can't appeal it either.
What exactly is a S59 and how does it come into play if a similar incident happens again? If you can't refuse one and can't appeal on, can plod just go throwing them out at everyone that even looks at them funnily? What do you do he's blatantly lied in the paperwork serving you with one?Can't find the description of the event as the page numbers don't sync with my layout.
Are you saying that you have been issued a S59 on the report of a member of the public? Did a police officer view any of it directly?
If so that's a bit dodgy. How many do you get before they size your car? 1 isn't it?
Are you saying that you have been issued a S59 on the report of a member of the public? Did a police officer view any of it directly?
If so that's a bit dodgy. How many do you get before they size your car? 1 isn't it?
Sheepshanks said:
Would it have made any difference if the cop had already decided that's what he was going to do? You can't refuse an S59 and you can't appeal it either.
The reason I asked was that pretty much all of the advice on here, including from serving officers was to attend interview with representation......I don't know, but It appears that maybe the advice was ignored
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff